Cargando…

A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews

BACKGROUND: Scoping reviews are used to identify knowledge gaps, set research agendas, and identify implications for decision-making. The conduct and reporting of scoping reviews is inconsistent in the literature. We conducted a scoping review to identify: papers that utilized and/or described scopi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tricco, Andrea C., Lillie, Erin, Zarin, Wasifa, O’Brien, Kelly, Colquhoun, Heather, Kastner, Monika, Levac, Danielle, Ng, Carmen, Sharpe, Jane Pearson, Wilson, Katherine, Kenny, Meghan, Warren, Rachel, Wilson, Charlotte, Stelfox, Henry T., Straus, Sharon E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4746911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26857112
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4
_version_ 1782414892130631680
author Tricco, Andrea C.
Lillie, Erin
Zarin, Wasifa
O’Brien, Kelly
Colquhoun, Heather
Kastner, Monika
Levac, Danielle
Ng, Carmen
Sharpe, Jane Pearson
Wilson, Katherine
Kenny, Meghan
Warren, Rachel
Wilson, Charlotte
Stelfox, Henry T.
Straus, Sharon E.
author_facet Tricco, Andrea C.
Lillie, Erin
Zarin, Wasifa
O’Brien, Kelly
Colquhoun, Heather
Kastner, Monika
Levac, Danielle
Ng, Carmen
Sharpe, Jane Pearson
Wilson, Katherine
Kenny, Meghan
Warren, Rachel
Wilson, Charlotte
Stelfox, Henry T.
Straus, Sharon E.
author_sort Tricco, Andrea C.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Scoping reviews are used to identify knowledge gaps, set research agendas, and identify implications for decision-making. The conduct and reporting of scoping reviews is inconsistent in the literature. We conducted a scoping review to identify: papers that utilized and/or described scoping review methods; guidelines for reporting scoping reviews; and studies that assessed the quality of reporting of scoping reviews. METHODS: We searched nine electronic databases for published and unpublished literature scoping review papers, scoping review methodology, and reporting guidance for scoping reviews. Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion. Data abstraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative (e.g. frequencies of methods) and qualitative (i.e. content analysis of the methods) syntheses were conducted. RESULTS: After searching 1525 citations and 874 full-text papers, 516 articles were included, of which 494 were scoping reviews. The 494 scoping reviews were disseminated between 1999 and 2014, with 45 % published after 2012. Most of the scoping reviews were conducted in North America (53 %) or Europe (38 %), and reported a public source of funding (64 %). The number of studies included in the scoping reviews ranged from 1 to 2600 (mean of 118). Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology guidance for scoping reviews, only 13 % of the scoping reviews reported the use of a protocol, 36 % used two reviewers for selecting citations for inclusion, 29 % used two reviewers for full-text screening, 30 % used two reviewers for data charting, and 43 % used a pre-defined charting form. In most cases, the results of the scoping review were used to identify evidence gaps (85 %), provide recommendations for future research (84 %), or identify strengths and limitations (69 %). We did not identify any guidelines for reporting scoping reviews or studies that assessed the quality of scoping review reporting. CONCLUSION: The number of scoping reviews conducted per year has steadily increased since 2012. Scoping reviews are used to inform research agendas and identify implications for policy or practice. As such, improvements in reporting and conduct are imperative. Further research on scoping review methodology is warranted, and in particular, there is need for a guideline to standardize reporting. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4746911
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47469112016-02-10 A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews Tricco, Andrea C. Lillie, Erin Zarin, Wasifa O’Brien, Kelly Colquhoun, Heather Kastner, Monika Levac, Danielle Ng, Carmen Sharpe, Jane Pearson Wilson, Katherine Kenny, Meghan Warren, Rachel Wilson, Charlotte Stelfox, Henry T. Straus, Sharon E. BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Scoping reviews are used to identify knowledge gaps, set research agendas, and identify implications for decision-making. The conduct and reporting of scoping reviews is inconsistent in the literature. We conducted a scoping review to identify: papers that utilized and/or described scoping review methods; guidelines for reporting scoping reviews; and studies that assessed the quality of reporting of scoping reviews. METHODS: We searched nine electronic databases for published and unpublished literature scoping review papers, scoping review methodology, and reporting guidance for scoping reviews. Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion. Data abstraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative (e.g. frequencies of methods) and qualitative (i.e. content analysis of the methods) syntheses were conducted. RESULTS: After searching 1525 citations and 874 full-text papers, 516 articles were included, of which 494 were scoping reviews. The 494 scoping reviews were disseminated between 1999 and 2014, with 45 % published after 2012. Most of the scoping reviews were conducted in North America (53 %) or Europe (38 %), and reported a public source of funding (64 %). The number of studies included in the scoping reviews ranged from 1 to 2600 (mean of 118). Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology guidance for scoping reviews, only 13 % of the scoping reviews reported the use of a protocol, 36 % used two reviewers for selecting citations for inclusion, 29 % used two reviewers for full-text screening, 30 % used two reviewers for data charting, and 43 % used a pre-defined charting form. In most cases, the results of the scoping review were used to identify evidence gaps (85 %), provide recommendations for future research (84 %), or identify strengths and limitations (69 %). We did not identify any guidelines for reporting scoping reviews or studies that assessed the quality of scoping review reporting. CONCLUSION: The number of scoping reviews conducted per year has steadily increased since 2012. Scoping reviews are used to inform research agendas and identify implications for policy or practice. As such, improvements in reporting and conduct are imperative. Further research on scoping review methodology is warranted, and in particular, there is need for a guideline to standardize reporting. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-02-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4746911/ /pubmed/26857112 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4 Text en © Tricco et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Tricco, Andrea C.
Lillie, Erin
Zarin, Wasifa
O’Brien, Kelly
Colquhoun, Heather
Kastner, Monika
Levac, Danielle
Ng, Carmen
Sharpe, Jane Pearson
Wilson, Katherine
Kenny, Meghan
Warren, Rachel
Wilson, Charlotte
Stelfox, Henry T.
Straus, Sharon E.
A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews
title A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews
title_full A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews
title_fullStr A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews
title_full_unstemmed A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews
title_short A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews
title_sort scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4746911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26857112
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4
work_keys_str_mv AT triccoandreac ascopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT lillieerin ascopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT zarinwasifa ascopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT obrienkelly ascopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT colquhounheather ascopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT kastnermonika ascopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT levacdanielle ascopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT ngcarmen ascopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT sharpejanepearson ascopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT wilsonkatherine ascopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT kennymeghan ascopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT warrenrachel ascopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT wilsoncharlotte ascopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT stelfoxhenryt ascopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT straussharone ascopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT triccoandreac scopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT lillieerin scopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT zarinwasifa scopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT obrienkelly scopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT colquhounheather scopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT kastnermonika scopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT levacdanielle scopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT ngcarmen scopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT sharpejanepearson scopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT wilsonkatherine scopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT kennymeghan scopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT warrenrachel scopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT wilsoncharlotte scopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT stelfoxhenryt scopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews
AT straussharone scopingreviewontheconductandreportingofscopingreviews