Cargando…
Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application
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 Reportin...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8499488/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34625095 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3 |
_version_ | 1784580317854564352 |
---|---|
author | Peters, Micah D. J. Marnie, Casey Colquhoun, Heather Garritty, Chantelle M. Hempel, Susanne Horsley, Tanya Langlois, Etienne V. Lillie, Erin O’Brien, Kelly K. Tunçalp, Ӧzge Wilson, Michael G. Zarin, Wasifa Tricco, Andrea C. |
author_facet | Peters, Micah D. J. Marnie, Casey Colquhoun, Heather Garritty, Chantelle M. Hempel, Susanne Horsley, Tanya Langlois, Etienne V. Lillie, Erin O’Brien, Kelly K. Tunçalp, Ӧzge Wilson, Michael G. Zarin, Wasifa Tricco, Andrea C. |
author_sort | Peters, Micah D. J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8499488 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84994882021-10-08 Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application Peters, Micah D. J. Marnie, Casey Colquhoun, Heather Garritty, Chantelle M. Hempel, Susanne Horsley, Tanya Langlois, Etienne V. Lillie, Erin O’Brien, Kelly K. Tunçalp, Ӧzge Wilson, Michael G. Zarin, Wasifa Tricco, Andrea C. Syst Rev Commentary 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. BioMed Central 2021-10-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8499488/ /pubmed/34625095 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Commentary Peters, Micah D. J. Marnie, Casey Colquhoun, Heather Garritty, Chantelle M. Hempel, Susanne Horsley, Tanya Langlois, Etienne V. Lillie, Erin O’Brien, Kelly K. Tunçalp, Ӧzge Wilson, Michael G. Zarin, Wasifa Tricco, Andrea C. Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application |
title | Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application |
title_full | Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application |
title_fullStr | Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application |
title_full_unstemmed | Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application |
title_short | Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application |
title_sort | scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application |
topic | Commentary |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8499488/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34625095 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT petersmicahdj scopingreviewsreinforcingandadvancingthemethodologyandapplication AT marniecasey scopingreviewsreinforcingandadvancingthemethodologyandapplication AT colquhounheather scopingreviewsreinforcingandadvancingthemethodologyandapplication AT garrittychantellem scopingreviewsreinforcingandadvancingthemethodologyandapplication AT hempelsusanne scopingreviewsreinforcingandadvancingthemethodologyandapplication AT horsleytanya scopingreviewsreinforcingandadvancingthemethodologyandapplication AT langloisetiennev scopingreviewsreinforcingandadvancingthemethodologyandapplication AT lillieerin scopingreviewsreinforcingandadvancingthemethodologyandapplication AT obrienkellyk scopingreviewsreinforcingandadvancingthemethodologyandapplication AT tuncalpözge scopingreviewsreinforcingandadvancingthemethodologyandapplication AT wilsonmichaelg scopingreviewsreinforcingandadvancingthemethodologyandapplication AT zarinwasifa scopingreviewsreinforcingandadvancingthemethodologyandapplication AT triccoandreac scopingreviewsreinforcingandadvancingthemethodologyandapplication |