Critical appraisal of mixed methods research studies in a systematic scoping review on plural policing: assessing the impact of excluding inadequately reported studies by means of a sensitivity analysis

Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.

The concept of validity has been a central component in critical appraisal exercises evaluating the methodological quality of quantitative studies. Reactions by qualitative researchers have been mixed in relation to whether or not validity should be applied to qualitative research and if so, what criteria should be used to distinguish high-quality articles from others. We compared three online critical appraisal instruments' ability to facilitate an assessment of validity. Many reviewers have used the critical appraisal skills program (CASP) tool to complete their critical appraisal exercise; however, CASP appears to be less sensitive to aspects of validity than the evaluation tool for qualitative studies (ETQS) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool. The ETQS provides detailed instructions on how to interpret criteria; however, it is the JBI tool, with its focus on congruity, that appears to be the most coherent.