Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Commentary

Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application

Authors: Micah D. J. Peters, Casey Marnie, Heather Colquhoun, Chantelle M. Garritty, Susanne Hempel, Tanya Horsley, Etienne V. Langlois, Erin Lillie, Kelly K. O’Brien, Ӧzge Tunçalp, Michael G. Wilson, Wasifa Zarin, Andrea C. Tricco

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Literature
1.
Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(4):371–85.CrossRef
2.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:15.CrossRef
3.
Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.CrossRef
4.
Peters M, Marnie C, Tricco A, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26.CrossRef
5.
Paiva L, Dalmolin GL, Andolhe R, dos Santos W. Absenteeism of hospital health workers: scoping review. Av enferm. 2020;38(2):234–48.CrossRef
6.
Visonà MW, Plonsky L. Arabic as a heritage language: a scoping review. Int J Biling. 2019;24(4):599–615.CrossRef
7.
McKerricher L, Petrucka P. Maternal nutritional supplement delivery in developing countries: a scoping review. BMC Nutr. 2019;5(1):8.CrossRef
8.
Fusar-Poli P, Salazar de Pablo G, De Micheli A, et al. What is good mental health? A scoping review. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2020;31:33–46.CrossRef
9.
Jowsey T, Foster G, Cooper-Ioelu P, Jacobs S. Blended learning via distance in pre-registration nursing education: a scoping review. Nurse Educ Pract. 2020;44:102775.CrossRef
10.
Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid-based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6.CrossRef
11.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.CrossRef
12.
Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: scoping reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI manual for evidence synthesis: JBI; 2020.
13.
Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.CrossRef
14.
Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69.CrossRef
15.
Miake-Lye IM, Hempel S, Shanman R, Shekelle PG. What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):28.CrossRef
16.
Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Inf Libr J. 2019;36(3):202–22.CrossRef
17.
Brady BR, De La Rosa JS, Nair US, Leischow SJ. Electronic cigarette policy recommendations: a scoping review. Am J Health Behav. 2019;43(1):88–104.CrossRef
18.
Truman E, Elliott C. Identifying food marketing to teenagers: a scoping review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019;16(1):67.CrossRef
19.
Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):224.CrossRef
20.
Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. All in the family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):183.CrossRef
21.
Tricco AC, Zarin W, Ghassemi M, et al. Same family, different species: methodological conduct and quality varies according to purpose for five types of knowledge synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;96:133–42.CrossRef
22.
Barker M, Adelson P, Peters MDJ, Steen M. Probiotics and human lactational mastitis: a scoping review. Women Birth. 2020;33(6):e483–e491.
23.
O’Donnell N, Kappen DL, Fitz-Walter Z, Deterding S, Nacke LE, Johnson D. How multidisciplinary is gamification research? Results from a scoping review. Extended abstracts publication of the annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play. Amsterdam: Association for Computing Machinery; 2017. p. 445–52.
24.
O’Flaherty J, Phillips C. The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: a scoping review. Internet High Educ. 2015;25:85–95.CrossRef
25.
Di Pasquale V, Miranda S, Neumann WP. Ageing and human-system errors in manufacturing: a scoping review. Int J Prod Res. 2020;58(15):4716–40.CrossRef
26.
27.
Lv M, Luo X, Estill J, et al. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a scoping review. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(15):2000125.CrossRef
28.
Shemilt I, Simon A, Hollands GJ, et al. Pinpointing needles in giant haystacks: use of text mining to reduce impractical screening workload in extremely large scoping reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(1):31–49.CrossRef
29.
Khalil H, Bennett M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Peters M. Evaluation of the JBI scoping reviews methodology by current users. Int J Evid-based Healthc. 2020;18(1):95–100.
30.
Kennedy K, Adelson P, Fleet J, et al. Shared decision aids in pregnancy care: a scoping review. Midwifery. 2020;81:102589.CrossRef
31.
Dall’Ora C, Ball J, Recio-Saucedo A, Griffiths P. Characteristics of shift work and their impact on employee performance and wellbeing: a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;57:12–27.CrossRef
32.
Feo R, Conroy T, Wiechula R, Rasmussen P, Kitson A. Instruments measuring behavioural aspects of the nurse–patient relationship: a scoping review. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29(11-12):1808–21.CrossRef
33.
Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, et al. Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):33.CrossRef
34.
Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(12):1291–4.CrossRef
35.
Tricco AC, Zarin W, Rios P, et al. Engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):31.CrossRef
36.
Cooper S, Cant R, Kelly M, et al. An evidence-based checklist for improving scoping review quality. Clin Nurs Res. 2021;30(3):230–240.
37.
Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, et al. Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):208.CrossRef
38.
Tricco AC, Zarin W, Rios P, Pham B, Straus SE, Langlois EV. Barriers, facilitators, strategies and outcomes to engaging policymakers, healthcare managers and policy analysts in knowledge synthesis: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2016;6(12):e013929.CrossRef
39.
Denton M, Borrego M. Funds of knowledge in STEM education: a scoping review. Stud Eng Educ. 2021;1(2):71–92.CrossRef
40.
Masta S, Secules S. When critical ethnography leaves the field and enters the engineering classroom: a scoping review. Stud Eng Educ. 2021;2(1):35–52.CrossRef
41.
42.
Houlihan M, Click A, Wiley C. Twenty years of business information literacy research: a scoping review. Evid. Based Libr. Inf. Pract. 2020;15(4):124–163.
43.
Plug I, Stommel W, Lucassen P, Hartman T, Van Dulmen S, Das E. Do women and men use language differently in spoken face-to-face interaction? A scoping review. Rev Commun Res. 2021;9:43–79.
44.
McGowan J, Straus S, Moher D, et al. Reporting scoping reviews - PRISMA ScR extension. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;123:177–9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application
Authors
Micah D. J. Peters
Casey Marnie
Heather Colquhoun
Chantelle M. Garritty
Susanne Hempel
Tanya Horsley
Etienne V. Langlois
Erin Lillie
Kelly K. O’Brien
Ӧzge Tunçalp
Michael G. Wilson
Wasifa Zarin
Andrea C. Tricco
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Systematic Reviews 1/2021 Go to the issue

Protocol

Expanding enhanced recovery protocols for cardiac surgery to include the patient voice: a scoping review protocol

Protocol

Economic evaluation of diagnostic sleep studies for obstructive sleep apnoea: a systematic review protocol

Protocol

Sex differences in CRT device implantation rates, efficacy, and complications following implantation: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies

Protocol

Experiences of families of public safety personnel: a systematic review protocol of qualitative evidence

Protocol

Effectiveness of interventions to increase uptake and completion of treatment for diabetic retinopathy in low- and middle-income countries: a rapid review protocol

Protocol

Cognitive rehabilitation interventions after stroke: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials