Scoping reviews

Reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application

Bibliographic Data

ID23371521
AuthorsMicah D J Peters (0000-0002-1108-3783, University of South Australia), Casey Marnie (0000-0001-9626-3646, University of South Australia), Heather Colquhoun (0000-0002-6226-2511, University of Toronto), Chantelle Garritty (0000-0002-2207-9958, Ottawa Hospital), Chantelle M Garritty, Susanne Hempel (0000-0003-1597-5110, University of Southern California), Tanya Horsley (0000-0002-1256-9582, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada), Eleanor Langlois (0000-0002-4853-2511, World Health Organization), Étienne V Langlois, Erin Lillie (0000-0001-7672-6535, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre), Kelly K O’brien (0000-0002-1632-6537, University of Toronto), Özge Tunçalp (0000-0002-5370-682X, World Health Organization), Ӧzge Tunçalp, M Glen Wilson (0000-0002-5383-2471, Impact), Wasifa Zarin (St. Michael's Hospital), Andrea C Tricco (0000-0002-4114-8971, St. Michael's Hospital, corresponding author)
Year2021
Volume10
Issue1
Pages263-263
Publication date2021-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueSystematic Reviews (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2046-4053 • E-ISSN: 2046-4053
PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3
PMID34625095
OpenAlexW3203243032
LanguageEN
Citations received102
References cited41

Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to evidence synthesis with a growing suite of methodological guidance and resources to assist review authors with their planning, conduct and reporting. The latest guidance for scoping reviews includes the JBI methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses—Extension for Scoping Reviews. This paper provides readers with a brief update regarding ongoing work to enhance and improve the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews as well as information regarding the future steps in scoping review methods development. The purpose of this paper is to provide readers with a concise source of information regarding the difference between scoping reviews and other review types, the reasons for undertaking scoping reviews, and an update on methodological guidance for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. Despite available guidance, some publications use the term ‘scoping review’ without clear consideration of available reporting and methodological tools. Selection of the most appropriate review type for the stated research objectives or questions, standardised use of methodological approaches and terminology in scoping reviews, clarity and consistency of reporting and ensuring that the reporting and presentation of the results clearly addresses the review’s objective(s) and question(s) are critical components for improving the rigour of scoping reviews. Rigourous, high-quality scoping reviews should clearly follow up to date methodological guidance and reporting criteria. Stakeholder engagement is one area where further work could occur to enhance integration of consultation with the results of evidence syntheses and to support effective knowledge translation. Scoping review methodology is evolving as a policy and decision-making tool. Ensuring the integrity of scoping reviews by adherence to up-to-date reporting standards is integral to supporting well-informed decision-making.

CLARITY · Consistency (knowledge bases) · Management science · MEDLINE · Presentation (obstetrics) · Process management · Public relations · Rigour · Stakeholder · Systematic review · Terminology · Computer Science · Delphi Technique in Research · Engineering · Evaluation and Performance Assessment · Medicine · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews