Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews

By M. Peters, C. Godfrey, H. Khalil, P. McInerney, D. Parker, C. Soares. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 2015

6,023 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Surgery

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7d2230642b9194c1bb2bdd8b398693f989baeda8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

In Surgery

David Moher

Citations in the corpus

Conversational Agents in Health Care: Scoping Review and Conceptual Analysis (2020, methodology): “We adopted methodological guidance from an updated version of the Arksey and O’Malley framework with suggestions proposed by Peters et al [40] in 2015 to conduct our scoping review.”
Using Media for Coping: A Scoping Review (2020, background): “To address these questions, drawing on existing recommended steps (e.g., Munn et al., 2018; Peters et al., 2015) and guidelines for reporting (i.”
Loneliness and social isolation interventions for older adults: a scoping review of reviews (2020, background): “They are particularly useful when a body of literature exhibits a large, complex or heterogeneous nature [27].”
A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews (2016, methodology): “Our protocol was developed using the scoping review methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) [1] and further refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute [3].”
Scoping reviews: the PAGER framework for improving the quality of reporting (2021, background): “For example, the guidance by Peters et al. (2015) states that – depending upon the objective or focus of the review – extracted results may be classified under main conceptual categories such as ‘key findings’ and ‘gaps in the research’ based on a logical and descriptive summary of the results…”
Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews (2020, methodology): “This process led to the publication of JBI’s first chapter and peer-reviewed paper describing guidance for authors of scoping reviews.(12,13) As with guidance for the more traditional systematic reviews for which JBI is known, the guidance for scoping reviews explicitly addressed the need for scopin”
Student perceptions of assessment feedback: a critical scoping review and call for research (2020, methodology): “This scoping review (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Gough, Oliver, & Thomas, 2012; Peters et al., 2015) of the literature on students’ perceptions of feedback aimed to (1) provide an overview of studies that have investigated student feedback perceptions, document the methods these studies employed, and i”
Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols (2022, background): “In 2014, an international, multidisciplinary group of clinicians and evidence synthesis experts developed new guidance for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews.(2,3) This guidance was most recently updated in 2020,(4) and now clearly reflects a relationship with the recent and complementary”
Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reduction (2022, methodology): “Thus, relying on scoping reviews’ iterative characteristic [168], we used theoretical saturation as a signal to stop sourcing new papers.”
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018, methodology): “summary of the JBI methodological guidance (4), as well as preliminary feedback from 209 the E-Delphi arm (described below).”
Emerging Adults’ Financial Well-being: A Scoping Review (2017, background): “1), as suggested by Peters et al. (2015). A total of 648 records were obtained from the databases search (125 from Scopus, 242 from PsycINFO, and 281 from EconPapers), 117 records were obtained from the conferences search (52 from SSEA, 65 from AFCPE), and 9 other records were obtained from other so”
Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review (2017, background): “Because its goal is to be comprehensive, research quality is not a concern for scoping reviews (Peters et al. 2015).”