A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The scoping review has become an increasingly popular approach for synthesizing research evidence. It is a relatively new approach for which a universal study definition or definitive procedure has not been established. The purpose of this scoping review was to provide an overview of scoping reviews in the literature.Methods
A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A search was conducted in four bibliographic databases and the gray literature to identify scoping review studies. Review selection and characterization were performed by two independent reviewers using pretested forms.Results
The search identified 344 scoping reviews published from 1999 to October 2012. The reviews varied in terms of purpose, methodology, and detail of reporting. Nearly three-quarter of reviews (74.1%) addressed a health topic. Study completion times varied from 2 weeks to 20 months, and 51% utilized a published methodological framework. Quality assessment of included studies was infrequently performed (22.38%).Conclusions
Scoping reviews are a relatively new but increasingly common approach for mapping broad topics. Because of variability in their conduct, there is a need for their methodological standardization to ensure the utility and strength of evidence.
SUBMITTER: Pham MT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4491356 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency.
Pham Mai T MT Rajić Andrijana A Greig Judy D JD Sargeant Jan M JM Papadopoulos Andrew A McEwen Scott A SA
Research synthesis methods 20140724 4
<h4>Background</h4>The scoping review has become an increasingly popular approach for synthesizing research evidence. It is a relatively new approach for which a universal study definition or definitive procedure has not been established. The purpose of this scoping review was to provide an overview of scoping reviews in the literature.<h4>Methods</h4>A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A search was conducted in four bibliographic databases and the gray litera ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundHistorically, Indigenous voices have been silent in health research, reflective of colonial academic institutions that privilege Western ways of knowing. However, Indigenous methodologies and methods with an emphasis on the active involvement of Indigenous peoples and centering Indigenous voices are gaining traction in health education and research. In this paper, we map each phase of our scoping review process and weave Indigenous research methodologies into Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework for conducting scoping reviews.MethodsGuided by an advisory circle consisting of Indigenous Knowledge Keepers and allied scholars, we utilized both Indigenous and Western methods to conduct a scoping review. As such, a circle of Knowledge Keepers provided guidance and informed our work, while our methods of searching and scoping the literature remained consistent with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. In keeping with an Indigenous methodology, the scoping review protocol was not registered allowing for an organic development of the research process.ResultsWe built upon Arksey and O'Malley's 5-stages and added an additional 3 steps for a combined 8-stage model to guide our research: (1) Exploration and Listening, (2) Doing the Groundwork, (3) Identifying and Refining the Research Question, (4) Identifying Relevant Studies, (5) Study Selection, (6) Mapping Data, (7) Collating, Summarizing and Synthesizing the Data, and lastly, (8) Sharing and Making Meaning. Engagement and listening, corresponding to Arksey and O'Malley (2005)'s optional "consultation stage," was embedded throughout, but with greater intensity in stages 1 and 8.ConclusionAn Indigenous approach to conducting a scoping review includes forming a team with a wide array of experience in both Indigenous and Western methodologies, meaningful Indigenous representation, and inclusion of Indigenous perspectives to shape the analysis and presentation of findings. Engaging Indigenous peoples throughout the entire research process, listening, and including Indigenous voices and perspectives is vital in reconciliation research, producing both credible and useable information for both Indigenous communities and academia. Our Indigenous methodology for conducting a scoping review can serve as a valuable framework for summarizing Indigenous health-related research.
| S-EPMC11247733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is consensus that health services commissioning and clinical practice should be driven by scientific evidence. However, workload pressures, accessibility of peer reviewed publications and skills to find, appraise, and synthesise relevant evidence are often cited as barriers to uptake of research evidence by practitioners and commissioners alike. In recent years a growing requirement for rapid evidence synthesis to inform commissioning decisions about healthcare service delivery and provision of care contributed to an increasing popularity of scoping literature reviews (SLRs). Yet, comprehensive guidelines for conducting and reporting SLRs are still relatively scarce.MethodsThe exemplar review used as a worked example aimed to provide a readily available, comprehensive, and user-friendly repository of research evidence for local commissioners to help them make evidence-informed decisions about redesigning East of England Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services. In conducting the review, we were broadly guided by Arksey and O'Malley's framework, however some modifications were made at different stages to better reflect the largely pragmatic objective of this review. This paper compares the methodology used with existing methodological frameworks for scoping studies, to add to the existing knowledge base.ResultsWe proposed the following advancements to the existing SLR frameworks: (i) Assemble a research team with complementary skills and expertise; (ii); Draw on expertise of external partners, particularly practitioners, decision-makers and commissioners who will be translating findings into practice; (iii) Pre-register the review protocol. Keep a detailed record of all steps and decisions and consider how they would impact on generalisability and utility of review findings; (iv) Use systematic procedures for literature searchers, selection of studies, data extraction and analysis; (v) If feasible, appraise the quality of included evidence; (vi) Be transparent about limitations of findings.ConclusionsDespite some methodological limitations, scoping literature reviews are a useful method of rapidly synthesising a large body of evidence to inform commissioning and transformation of CAMHS. SLRs allow researchers to start with a broader questions, to explore the issue from different perspectives and perhaps find more comprehensive solutions that are not only effective, but also accounted for their feasibility and acceptability to key stakeholders.
| S-EPMC7526176 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesOver the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities.MethodThe authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA-ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review.ResultsOne hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA-ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal.ConclusionsScoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised.
| S-EPMC8247025 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. METHODS:We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010-2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review. RESULTS:We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ??4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION:We identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4 .
| S-EPMC6260873 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:What roles do librarians and information professionals play in conducting systematic reviews? Librarians are increasingly called upon to be involved in systematic reviews, but no study has considered all the roles librarians can perform. This inventory of existing and emerging roles aids in defining librarians' systematic reviews services. Methods:For this scoping review, the authors conducted controlled vocabulary and text-word searches in the PubMed; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; and CINAHL databases. We separately searched for articles published in the Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, the Journal of the Canadian Heath Libraries Association, and Hypothesis. We also text-word searched Medical Library Association annual meeting poster and paper abstracts. Results:We identified 18 different roles filled by librarians and other information professionals in conducting systematic reviews from 310 different articles, book chapters, and presented papers and posters. Some roles were well known such as searching, source selection, and teaching. Other less documented roles included planning, question formulation, and peer review. We summarize these different roles and provide an accompanying bibliography of references for in-depth descriptions of these roles. Conclusion:Librarians play central roles in systematic review teams, including roles that go beyond searching. This scoping review should encourage librarians who are fulfilling roles that are not captured here to document their roles in journal articles and poster and paper presentations.
| S-EPMC5764593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSensors and digital devices have revolutionized the measurement, collection, and storage of behavioral and physiological data, leading to the new term digital biomarkers.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the scope of clinical evidence covered by systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials involving digital biomarkers.MethodsThis scoping review was organized using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. With the search limited to English publications, full-text SRs of digital biomarkers included randomized controlled trials that involved a human population and reported changes in participants' health status. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched with time frames limited to 2019 and 2020. The World Health Organization's classification systems for diseases (International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision), health interventions (International Classification of Health Interventions), and bodily functions (International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health [ICF]) were used to classify populations, interventions, and outcomes, respectively.ResultsA total of 31 SRs met the inclusion criteria. The majority of SRs studied patients with circulatory system diseases (19/31, 61%) and respiratory system diseases (9/31, 29%). Most of the prevalent interventions focused on physical activity behavior (16/31, 52%) and conversion of cardiac rhythm (4/31, 13%). Looking after one's health (physical activity; 15/31, 48%), walking (12/31, 39%), heart rhythm functions (8/31, 26%), and mortality (7/31, 23%) were the most commonly reported outcomes. In total, 16 physiological and behavioral data groups were identified using the ICF tool, such as looking after one's health (physical activity; 14/31, 45%), walking (11/31, 36%), heart rhythm (7/31, 23%), and weight maintenance functions (7/31, 23%). Various digital devices were also studied to collect these data in the included reviews, such as smart glasses, smartwatches, smart bracelets, smart shoes, and smart socks for measuring heart functions, gait pattern functions, and temperature. A substantial number (24/31, 77%) of digital biomarkers were used as interventions. Moreover, wearables (22/31, 71%) were the most common types of digital devices. Position sensors (21/31, 68%) and heart rate sensors and pulse rate sensors (12/31, 39%) were the most prevalent types of sensors used to acquire behavioral and physiological data in the SRs.ConclusionsIn recent years, the clinical evidence concerning digital biomarkers has been systematically reviewed in a wide range of study populations, interventions, digital devices, and sensor technologies, with the dominance of physical activity and cardiac monitors. We used the World Health Organization's ICF tool for classifying behavioral and physiological data, which seemed to be an applicable tool to categorize the broad scope of digital biomarkers identified in this review. To understand the clinical value of digital biomarkers, the strength and quality of the evidence on their health consequences need to be systematically evaluated.
| S-EPMC9641516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundScoping reviews have emerged as a valuable method for synthesizing emerging evidence, providing a comprehensive contextual overview, and influencing policy and practice developments. The objective of this study is to provide an overview of scoping reviews conducted in Chinese academic institutions over the last decades.MethodWe conducted a comprehensive search of nine databases and six grey literature databases for scoping reviews conducted in Chinese academic institutions. The reporting quality of the included reviews was assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for PRISMA-ScR checklist. We performed both quantitative and qualitative analyses, examining the conduct of the scoping reviews and exploring the breadth of research topics covered. We used Chi-squared and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests to compare methodological issues and reporting quality in English and Chinese-language reviews.ResultsA total of 392 reviews published between 2013 and 2022 were included, 238 English-reported reviews and 154 Chinese-reported reviews, respectively. The primary purposes of these reviews were to map and summarize the evidence, with a particular focus on health and nursing topics. 98.7% of reviews explicitly used the term "scoping review", and the Arksey and O'Malley framework was the most frequently cited framework. Thirty-five English-reported scoping reviews provided a protocol for scoping review. PubMed was the most common source in English-reported reviews and CNKI in Chinese-reported reviews. Reviews published in English were more likely to search the grey literature (P = 0.005), consult information specialists (P < 0.001) and conduct an updated search (P = 0.012) than those in Chinese. Reviews published in English had a significantly high score compared to those published in Chinese (16 vs. 14; P < 0.001). The reporting rates in English-reported reviews were higher than those in Chinese reviews for seven items, but lower for structured summary (P < 0.001), eligibility criteria (P < 0.001), data charting process (P = 0.009) and data items (P = 0.015).ConclusionThere has been a significant increase in the number of scoping reviews conducted in Chinese academic institutions each year since 2020. While the research topics covered are diverse, the overall reporting quality of these reviews is need to be improved. And there is a need for greater standardization in the conduct of scoping reviews in Chinese academic institutions.
| S-EPMC10882808 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPolypharmacy can be either beneficial or harmful to children. We conducted a scoping review to examine the concept of pediatric polypharmacy: its definition, prevalence, extent and gaps in research. In this manuscript, we report our transdisciplinary scoping review methodology.MethodsAfter establishing a transdisciplinary team, we iteratively developed standard operating procedures for the study's search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, screening, and data extraction. We searched eight bibliographic databases, screened abstracts and full text articles, and extracted data from included studies using standardized forms. We held regular team meetings and performed ongoing internal validity measurements to maintain consistent and quality outputs.ResultsWith the aid of EPPI Reviewer collaborative software, our transdisciplinary team of nine members performed dual reviews of 363 included studies after dual screening of 4398 abstracts and 1082 full text articles. We achieved overall agreement of 85% and a kappa coefficient of 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.74) while screening full text articles. The screening and review processes required about seven hours per extracted study. The two pharmacists, an epidemiologist, a neurologist, and a librarian on the review team provided internal consultation in these key disciplines. A stakeholder group of 10 members with expertise in evidence synthesis, research implementation, pediatrics, mental health, epilepsy, pharmacoepidemiology, and pharmaceutical outcomes were periodically consulted to further characterize pediatric polypharmacy.ConclusionsA transdisciplinary approach to scoping reviews, including internal and external consultation, should be considered when addressing complex cross-disciplinary questions.
| S-EPMC6172739 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Maternal and perinatal death surveillance and response (MPDSR), or any related form of audit, is a systematic process used to prevent future maternal and perinatal deaths. While the existence of MPDSR policies is routinely measured, measurement and understanding of policy implementation has lagged behind. In this paper, we present a theory-based conceptual framework for understanding MPDSR implementation as well as a scoping review protocol to understand factors influencing MPDSR implementation in low/ middle-income countries (LMIC). METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will inform the development of a theory-based conceptual framework for MPDSR implementation. The methodology for the scoping review will be guided by an adapted Arksey and O'Malley approach. Documents will include published and grey literature sourced from electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, JSTOR, LILACS), the WHO Library, Maternal Death Surveillance and Response Action Network, Google, the reference lists of key studies and key experts. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full studies for inclusion. All discrepancies will be resolved by an independent third party. We will include studies published in English from 2004 to July 2018 that present results on factors influencing implementation of MPDSR, or any related form. Qualitative content and thematic analysis will be applied to extracted data according to the theory-based conceptual framework. Stakeholders will be consulted at various stages of the process. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The scoping review will synthesise implementation factors relating to MPDSR in LMIC as described in the literature. This review will contribute to the work of the Countdown to 2030 Drivers Group, which seeks to explore key contextual drivers for equitable and effective coverage of maternal and child health interventions. Ethics approval is not required. The results will be disseminated through various channels, including a peer-reviewed publication.
| S-EPMC6886965 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Adherence to oral chemotherapy is crucial to maximize treatment outcomes and avoid health complications in cancer patients. Mobile phones are widely available worldwide, and evidence that this technology can be successfully employed to increase medication adherence for the treatment of other chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) is well established. However, the extent to which there is evidence that mobile phone-based interventions improve adherence to oral chemotherapy is unknown. OBJECTIVE:This scoping review aims to explore what is known about mobile phone-delivered interventions designed to enhance adherence to oral chemotherapy, to examine the reported findings on the utility of these interventions in increasing oral chemotherapy adherence, and to identify opportunities for development of future interventions. METHODS:This study followed Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodological framework. RESULTS:The review search yielded 5 studies reporting on 4 interventions with adults (aged >18 years) diagnosed with diverse cancer types. All interventions were considered acceptable, useful, and feasible. The following themes were evident: text messages and mobile apps were the main methods of delivering these interventions, the 2 most commonly employed oral chemotherapy adherence-enhancing strategies were management and reporting of drug-related symptoms and reminders to take medication, the importance of stakeholders' engagement in intervention design, and the overall positive perceptions of delivery features. Areas for future research identified by this review include the need for further studies to evaluate the impact of mobile phone-delivered interventions on adherence to oral chemotherapy as well as the relevance for future studies to incorporate design frameworks and economic evaluations and to explore the moderator effect of high anxiety, poor baseline adherence, and longer time taking prescribed drug on adherence to oral chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS:Despite the increasing body of evidence on the use of mobile phones to deliver medication adherence-enhancing interventions in chronic diseases, literature on the oral chemotherapy context is lacking. This review showed that existing interventions are highly acceptable and useful to cancer patients. The engagement of stakeholders as well as the use of a design framework are important elements in the development of mobile phone-delivered interventions that can be translated into oncology settings.
| S-EPMC6320412 | biostudies-literature