Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting

The scoping review has become increasingly popular as a form of knowledge synthesis. However, a lack of consensus on scoping review terminology, definition, methodology, and reporting limits the potential of this form of synthesis. In this article, we propose recommendations to further advance the f...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of clinical epidemiology Jg. 67; H. 12; S. 1291 - 1294
Hauptverfasser: Colquhoun, Heather L., Levac, Danielle, O'Brien, Kelly K., Straus, Sharon, Tricco, Andrea C., Perrier, Laure, Kastner, Monika, Moher, David
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: United States Elsevier Inc 01.12.2014
Elsevier Limited
Schlagworte:
Biomedical Research
Epidemiology
EQUATOR
Humans
Internal Medicine
Knowledge synthesis
Medical research
Methodology
Methods
Publishing - standards
Reporting
Research Design
Scoping review
Scoping Reviews As Topic
Scoping study
Stakeholders
Studies
Terminology
Terminology as Topic
Terminology
Methodology
Knowledge synthesis
Scoping review
Scoping study
Reporting
EQUATOR
ISSN:0895-4356, 1878-5921, 1878-5921
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The scoping review has become increasingly popular as a form of knowledge synthesis. However, a lack of consensus on scoping review terminology, definition, methodology, and reporting limits the potential of this form of synthesis. In this article, we propose recommendations to further advance the field of scoping review methodology. We summarize current understanding of scoping review publication rates, terms, definitions, and methods. We propose three recommendations for clarity in term, definition and methodology. We recommend adopting the terms “scoping review” or “scoping study” and the use of a proposed definition. Until such time as further guidance is developed, we recommend the use of the methodological steps outlined in the Arksey and O'Malley framework and further enhanced by Levac et al. The development of reporting guidance for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews is underway. Consistency in the proposed domains and methodologies of scoping reviews, along with the development of reporting guidance, will facilitate methodological advancement, reduce confusion, facilitate collaboration and improve knowledge translation of scoping review findings.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:0895-4356
1878-5921
1878-5921
DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013