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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |