A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews

By Andrea C. Tricco, E. Lillie, Wasifa Zarin, K. O’Brien, Heather Colquhoun, M. Kastner, D. Levac, C. Ng, J. P. Sharpe, K. Wilson and 5 more. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2016

1,885 citations recorded by the source corpus.

BackgroundScoping 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assessed the quality of reporting of scoping reviews.MethodsWe searched nine electronic databases for published and unpublished literature scoping review papers, scoping review methodology, and reporting guidance for scoping reviews.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.ResultsAfter 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.ConclusionThe 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.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/91435675555c6bce345c14c4f31104353f325a49

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

1. Andrea C. Tricco
2. M. Peters
3. C. Godfrey
4. Z. Munn
5. K. O’Brien
6. Heather Colquhoun
7. D. Levac
8. L. Stewart

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

1. David Moher
2. Julie Taylor
3. Elie A. Akl
4. Z. Munn
5. Douglas G. Altman
6. K. F. Schulz

In Statistics and Probability

1. Andrea C. Tricco
2. M. Peters
3. David Moher
4. Z. Munn
5. C. Godfrey
6. L. Stewart
7. Elie A. Akl
8. H. Khalil

Citations in the corpus

• Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols (2022, neutral): “As Tricco and colleagues 7 found in their 2016 scoping review, few scoping reviews (13”
• Stadium Attendance Demand Research: A Scoping Review (2021, background): “In emerging research fields such as the economics of sports, conducting a scoping review is helpful in identifying, locating, and, then, synthesizing the existing knowledge (e.g., McKinstry et al., 2014; Tricco et al., 2016, 2018).”
• PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018, methodology): “A recent scoping review by members of our team showed that while the 131 number of scoping reviews in the literature is increasing steadily, evidence suggests 132 that both their methodological quality and reporting quality need to improve to facilitate 133 complete and transparent reporting (1).”
• Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reduction (2022, background): “They are especially appropriate when distilling and sharing research findings with practitioners [221], and are suited to identifying evidence on a topic and presenting it visually.”
• Scoping reviews: the PAGER framework for improving the quality of reporting (2021, background): “This in turn can lead to questions about the rigour and transferability of scoping review findings (Pham et al., 2014), in addition to fatigue with the now ubiquitous finding that ‘more research is needed’ – a common conclusion drawn from scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2016).”
• Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics (2021, methodology): “As the popularity of scoping reviews has increased, so too have the criticisms of this methodological approach for synthesizing evidence (Davis et al., 2009; Tricco et al., 2016).”
• Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews (2020, background): “’’ Scoping reviews are conducted for several reasons, with the most common being to explore the breadth or depth of the literature, map and summarize the evidence, inform future research, and identify or address knowledge gaps.(19) Scoping reviews are particularly helpful when the literature is comp”