Cochrane Update. 'Scoping the scope' of a cochrane review.
By Rebecca Armstrong, Belinda J. Hall, J. Doyle, E. Waters. Journal of public health, 2011
1,191 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: General Health Professions, Sociology and Political Science, Statistics and Probability
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a296d86a8e7c7f59e2c31fd3634220cfdabf70bf
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 Sociology and Political Science
In Statistics and Probability
Citations in the corpus
- A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency (2014, background): “…review articles on scoping reviews (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005; Anderson et al., 2008; Davis et al., 2009; Grant and Booth, 2009; Hetrick et al., 2010; Levac et al., 2010; Rumrill et al., 2010; Armstrong et al., 2011) were manually searched to identify any further scoping reviews not yet captured.”
- Coach Burnout: A Scoping Review (2019, neutral): “Scoping reviews are argued to be suitable in these situations, as they allow greater flexibility to include a wider range of types of publications, compared to a systematic review (Armstrong et al., 2011; Clark, Camiré, Wade, & Cairney, 2015).”
- Natural language processing in mental health applications using non-clinical texts† (2017, background): “…such as those published by the Cochrane Collaboration require an understanding of the existing literature and its gaps and involve a process that investigates a research question and develops and applies a framework for exploring a question utilizing existing literature (Armstrong et al. 2011).”