oLT1: Exploring Discrepancies between Protocols and Published Scoping Reviews: What Differs and Why?
Background: Implementation science (IS) applies psychological theory and behaviour-change strategies to implement evidence-based interventions in real-world settings. Scoping reviews are used in IS to map literature and identify gaps. Discrepancies are common between systematic reviews and their preregistered protocols; their extent in scoping reviews is unclear. Their more flexible methodology may increase deviations from plans, potentially compromising the trustworthiness of findings.
Aim: This study will examine the prevalence, extent, nature and justifications of discrepancies between scoping reviews and their protocols, using IS as an exemplar.
Methods: A meta-scientific study of reviews from five journals is underway. Reviews with available protocols are assessed. Methodological details will be extracted using a tool informed by scoping review guidelines. Data will be coded for the number, extent and type of discrepancies, and justifications reported.
Discussion: The findings can inform review guidance, particularly on tracking and reporting protocol-review discrepancies.
