A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews

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assessed the quality of reporting of scoping reviews.MethodsWe searched nine electronic databases for published and unpublished literature scoping review papers, scoping review methodology, and reporting guidance for scoping reviews.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

[1]  A. Tricco,et al.  What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[2]  A. Rajić,et al.  A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency , 2014, Research synthesis methods.

[3]  David Moher,et al.  An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  H. Daudt,et al.  Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[5]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias , 2008, PloS one.

[6]  David Moher,et al.  Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[7]  Iveta Simera,et al.  Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  D. Levac,et al.  Scoping studies: advancing the methodology , 2010, Implementation science : IS.

[9]  S. Hanney,et al.  Why national health research systems matter , 2008, Health research policy and systems.

[10]  David Moher,et al.  All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[11]  S. Straus,et al.  Knowledge translation in health care : moving from evidence to practice , 2009 .

[12]  R. J. Hayes,et al.  Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. , 1995, JAMA.

[13]  D. Moher,et al.  A scoping review of rapid review methods , 2015, BMC Medicine.

[14]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[15]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[16]  D. Parker,et al.  Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews , 2015, International journal of evidence-based healthcare.

[17]  Lauren Thomson,et al.  Life quality and health in adolescents and emerging adults with epilepsy during the years of transition: a scoping review , 2014, Developmental medicine and child neurology.

[18]  D. Moher,et al.  Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network , 2010, BMC medicine.

[19]  D. Moher,et al.  Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines , 2010, PLoS medicine.

[20]  Sharon E Straus,et al.  Knowledge translation is the use of knowledge in health care decision making. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[21]  Stephen Peckham,et al.  Asking the right questions: Scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services , 2008, Health research policy and systems.

[22]  H. Arksey,et al.  Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework , 2005 .

[23]  D. Moher,et al.  Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[24]  Naomi S Thulien.  Innovative approaches to cervical cancer screening for sex trade workers: an international scoping review. , 2014, Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC.