Exploring Discrepancies between Protocols and Published Scoping Reviews in Implementation Science: Protocol for a Methodological Study

Background: Discrepancies appear to be common between systematic reviews and their protocols, potentially undermining the credibility of their findings if discrepancies are not transparently reported. However, it is unclear to what extent such discrepancies also exist within scoping reviews, which may be more prone to such changes due to their greater flexibility. Scoping reviews are increasingly common within implementation science; biases in their conduct therefore may have detrimental effects to the real-world settings in which evidence is applied, in addition to undermining the scientific validity of the reviews in this growing discipline. This study aims to investigate discrepancies between scoping reviews and their protocols using reviews in the field of implementation science as an exemplar. In particular, the study will examine how common such discrepancies are, why they occur, and how they are reported in the literature. Methods: This is a methodological study of completed scoping reviews on implementation science topics which will be gathered from five key journals: Implementation Science, Implementation Research and Practice, Implementation Science Communications, BMJ Quality and Safety, and JBI Evidence Implementation. Those with available protocols will be examined for discrepancies between their earliest protocol and their final report. Methodological details will be extracted from the protocols and reviews. These data will be coded to ascertain whether discrepancies are found, what aspect of the review these relate to, the extent of this change (e.g. major vs. minor), whether discrepancies are acknowledged and where this occurs in the paper, and any justification given for this change. The data extraction tool is in development, informed by relevant guidelines for conducting and reporting scoping reviews. Conclusions: By understanding the extent, nature, and reasons for discrepancies in scoping reviews, findings can inform guidance for conducting such reviews, particularly when planning review protocols, and when reporting methodological discrepancies.