Scoping review of evidence synthesis: Concepts, types and methods

Carla Andrea Trapé; Célia Maria Sivalli Campos; Cintia de Freitas Oliveira; João Gabriel Sanchez Tavares da Silva; Liza Yurie Teruya Uchimura; Mabel Fernandes Figueiró; Maritsa Carla de Bortoli; Sidney Marcel Domingues; Tatiana Yonekura

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0323555

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 13, 2024
13 Dec 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323555.r001
17 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - André Luis C Ramalho, Editor PONE-D-24-56232Scoping Review of Evidence Synthesis: Concepts, Types and MethodsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Trapé, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 03 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, André Ramalho, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4? In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. We note that Figure 2 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ 5. Please remove all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Note: spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file. Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long. 6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: With my understanding and knowledge, the manuscript appears to be technically good. A well-structured scoping review strategy is used to investigate various evidence synthesis methodologies carefully. The methodology follows existing scoping review procedures, such as the PRISMA-ScR checklist, which is widely accepted in the area. Also, the authors have stated that all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript are fully available without restriction. This is explicitly mentioned in their Data Availability Statement, which indicates that all relevant data are included within the manuscript and its supporting information files. Some insights might need to be addressed for more clarification of the reader: 1. The categorisation of evidence synthesis types is insightful, though further clarity and distinction between categories could enhance the manuscript's utility. The manuscript identifies 71 terminologies and groups them into 16 categories, but some categories lack clear distinctions, leading to potential confusion. Provide more precise definitions and examples for each category to differentiate between them clearly. Consider adding specific criteria or characteristics that define each type. 2. While the manuscript lists various types of reviews, it does not provide sufficient in-depth analysis of their methodological strengths and weaknesses. Expand on the methodological critique of each review type, discussing their specific advantages, limitations, and best use cases. This will offer readers a deeper understanding of when and how to apply each methodology. 3. The conclusion highlights the need for standardization but does not provide concrete suggestions for achieving this. Include more detailed recommendations or a proposed framework for standardizing the terminology and methodologies. This could involve suggesting guidelines or collaboration with key stakeholders in the field. 4. Need to ensure consistent use of terminology throughout the manuscript to avoid confusion, especially when referring to the different types of evidence synthesis. Some terms like "rapid review," "systematic map," "scoping review," "narrative review," "realist review," and "integrative review" need to be clearly defined and consistently used throughout the manuscript. Need more precise definitions to avoid overlap and ambiguity. Reviewer #2: - In a world where scientific production is exponentially growing, literature reviews and evidence synthesis play a critical role, as authors mentioned. This manuscript proves to be interesting and relevant in theme and scope considering it analyzes variations in the degree of process and rigor within the different types of review, thus aiming to explore the concepts, types, and methodologies associated with literature reviews and evidence synthesis. Nevertheless, it is important to notice some aspects. Regarding Methods section, authors mention “Subject descriptors, synonyms, and keywords were used to compose the search sets in the defined information sources”. It would be interesting to understand whether authors did calibrate the query through a sensitivity analysis of the used terms instead of simply identifying and joining keywords and index terms in a search expression. Besides, in Study selection section, authors “conducted screening for relevance” using “Rayyan software by pairs of independent reviewers with the participation of a third reviewer to resolve conflicts when necessary”. It would be interesting to know de extent of agreement between investigators in these phase (for example, by calculating the percentage calculation of agreement or Cohen’s kappa coefficient (which is a more robust statistical measure of agreement)). - By registering the protocol of this study, designing it in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist, authors present a feasible methodology which allows the work replicability, thus leading to a meaningful outcome. Given all these aspects, it is believed this manuscript is suitable for publication. Best regards. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Bruno Filipe Coelho da Costa ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323555.r002
Revision 1
12 Mar 2025 Author Response Dear Editorial Board, We sincerely appreciate the time and effort that the editorial team and reviewers have dedicated to evaluating our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of the comments and suggestions provided, making the necessary revisions to ensure our manuscript meets PLOS ONE’s standards. Below, we provide detailed responses to each concern raised. 1. Manuscript Formatting: We have revised our manuscript to comply with PLOS ONE's style requirements, following the provided formatting guidelines for the main text and title, authors, and affiliations. 2. Text Overlap with Previous Publications: We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript for any overlapping text with the publication referenced (https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4). Any duplicated text outside the methods section has been properly cited, rephrased, or removed as necessary to avoid redundancy. 3. Grant Information Consistency: We have corrected and aligned the grant information across the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections, ensuring accurate and consistent details, including grant numbers. 4. Copyrighted Figures (Figure 2): We have either removed Figure 2 with an alternative that is compliant with the CC BY 4.0 license. 5. Data Anonymization: All personal information has been removed from the dataset to comply with PLOS ONE’s data-sharing policy. We have re-uploaded a fully anonymized dataset, ensuring that no hidden columns contain sensitive information. 6. Supporting Information Captions: Captions for all Supporting Information files have been added at the end of the manuscript, with corresponding in-text citations updated accordingly. 7. Reference List Review: We have reviewed our reference list to ensure completeness and accuracy. Responses to Reviewer Comments: 1. Definitions and Examples for Review Types: ○ We have refined and expanded the definitions of different review types, providing clearer distinctions and specific examples to enhance clarity. To address this, we have refined and expanded our definitions, ensuring that each review type is more precisely delineated. Additionally, we have provided concrete examples to illustrate these distinctions, which are included in the appendix table for reference. ○ These revisions aim to enhance clarity and assist readers in understanding the methodological approaches associated with each review type. 2. Methodological Strengths and Weaknesses of Review Types: ○ We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to provide a more in-depth analysis of the methodological strengths and weaknesses of each review type. In response, we have incorporated a discussion section (lines 159-166, 168-174, 177-184, 187-191, 196, 197, 201-2012, 217-224, 231-233, 237, 243-248, 292-316) detailed critique that outlines the specific advantages, limitations, and best use cases for each type of review. This additional discussion enhances the manuscript’s methodological rigor and provides clearer guidance for researchers on selecting the most appropriate review methodology for their objectives. ○ To maintain clarity and accessibility, we have compiled these methodological considerations into an appendix table, where each review type is systematically analyzed. We believe this format allows readers to quickly compare and contrast different methodologies while ensuring the main text remainsponde focused and concise. 3. Standardization of Terminology: ○ The conclusion now includes concrete suggestions for standardizing terminology and methodologies, including a proposed framework and collaboration strategies with key stakeholders (lines 334-344). 4. Terminology Consistency: ○ We have ensured that terms such as "rapid review," "systematic map," "scoping review," "narrative review," "realist review," and "integrative review" are clearly defined and consistently used throughout in the results section. 5. Study Selection Process and Inter-Rater Agreement: ○ We appreciate the reviewer´s suggestion regarding the calibration of search queries and the assessment of inter-rater agreement during the study selection process. Regarding the search strategy and study selection process, our team conducted multiple calibration exercises among reviewers before the formal screening process began. These calibration steps ensured a shared understanding of inclusion and exclusion criteria, reducing the likelihood of discrepancies during the screening phase. Given this iterative alignment, we did not find it necessary to apply additional agreement measures such as Cohen’s kappa coefficient. However, we acknowledge the importance of such metrics and have clarified our methodological approach in the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' constructive feedback, which has helped us strengthen our manuscript. We hope that our revisions adequately address all concerns and that the manuscript is now suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your response. Best regards, Dra. Carla Andrea Trapé Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323555.r003
10 Apr 2025 Decision Letter - André Luis C Ramalho, Editor Scoping review of evidence synthesis: concepts, types and methods PONE-D-24-56232R1 Dear Dr. Trapé, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, André Luis C Ramalho, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: The peer review process for this manuscript was conducted in accordance with PLOS One’s editorial policies, involving two independent reviewers. In the first round, one reviewer recommended acceptance, while the other suggested minor revisions. The authors addressed all comments with significant improvements, and upon reevaluation, the second reviewer updated their recommendation to acceptance. A third reviewer was provisionally invited in case of continued divergence; however, this step proved unnecessary, and the invitation was withdrawn. With both reviewers now in agreement and the peer review process duly fulfilled, I, as editor, recommend the manuscript for acceptance and publication. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Required a basic proof reading. (Example: line 67 need to be written more clearly). The submission looks over wordy. Author's have addresssed the previous comments. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: Yes: Rahul Kumar Jha ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323555.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - André Luis C Ramalho, Editor PONE-D-24-56232R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Trapé, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Dr. André Luis C Ramalho Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323555.r005

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .