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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 METHODS: We searched nine electronic databases for published and unpublished literature scoping review papers, scoping review methodology, and reporting guidance for scoping reviews.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 |