Cargando…

A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency

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 sco...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pham, Mai T, Rajić, Andrijana, Greig, Judy D, Sargeant, Jan M, Papadopoulos, Andrew, McEwen, Scott A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4491356/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26052958
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123
_version_ 1782379627520458752
author Pham, Mai T
Rajić, Andrijana
Greig, Judy D
Sargeant, Jan M
Papadopoulos, Andrew
McEwen, Scott A
author_facet Pham, Mai T
Rajić, Andrijana
Greig, Judy D
Sargeant, Jan M
Papadopoulos, Andrew
McEwen, Scott A
author_sort Pham, Mai T
collection PubMed
description 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. © 2014 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4491356
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Blackwell Publishing Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44913562015-07-08 A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency Pham, Mai T Rajić, Andrijana Greig, Judy D Sargeant, Jan M Papadopoulos, Andrew McEwen, Scott A Res Synth Methods Original Articles 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. © 2014 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2014-12 2014-07-24 /pmc/articles/PMC4491356/ /pubmed/26052958 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123 Text en © 2014 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Pham, Mai T
Rajić, Andrijana
Greig, Judy D
Sargeant, Jan M
Papadopoulos, Andrew
McEwen, Scott A
A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency
title A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency
title_full A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency
title_fullStr A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency
title_full_unstemmed A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency
title_short A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency
title_sort scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4491356/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26052958
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123
work_keys_str_mv AT phammait ascopingreviewofscopingreviewsadvancingtheapproachandenhancingtheconsistency
AT rajicandrijana ascopingreviewofscopingreviewsadvancingtheapproachandenhancingtheconsistency
AT greigjudyd ascopingreviewofscopingreviewsadvancingtheapproachandenhancingtheconsistency
AT sargeantjanm ascopingreviewofscopingreviewsadvancingtheapproachandenhancingtheconsistency
AT papadopoulosandrew ascopingreviewofscopingreviewsadvancingtheapproachandenhancingtheconsistency
AT mcewenscotta ascopingreviewofscopingreviewsadvancingtheapproachandenhancingtheconsistency
AT phammait scopingreviewofscopingreviewsadvancingtheapproachandenhancingtheconsistency
AT rajicandrijana scopingreviewofscopingreviewsadvancingtheapproachandenhancingtheconsistency
AT greigjudyd scopingreviewofscopingreviewsadvancingtheapproachandenhancingtheconsistency
AT sargeantjanm scopingreviewofscopingreviewsadvancingtheapproachandenhancingtheconsistency
AT papadopoulosandrew scopingreviewofscopingreviewsadvancingtheapproachandenhancingtheconsistency
AT mcewenscotta scopingreviewofscopingreviewsadvancingtheapproachandenhancingtheconsistency