A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. (24th July 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pham, Mai T.; Rajić, Andrijana; Greig, Judy D.; Sargeant, Jan M.; Papadopoulos, Andrew; McEwen, Scott A.
• Is Part Of: Research synthesis methods. Volume 5:Number 4(2014:Oct./Dec.)
• Page Start: 371
• Page End: 385
• Publication Date: 2014-07-24
• Subjects: Research -- Methodology -- Periodicals; Research -- Statistical methods -- Periodicals; 507.2
• DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1123
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1759-2879

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec id="jrsm1123-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Background</title> <p>The scoping review has become an increasingly popular approach for synthesizing research evidence. It is a relatively new approach for which a universal study definition or definitive procedure has not been established. The purpose of this scoping review was to provide an overview of scoping reviews in the literature.</p> </sec> <sec id="jrsm1123-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Methods</title> <p>A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A search was conducted in four bibliographic databases and the gray literature to identify scoping review studies. Review selection and characterization were performed by two independent reviewers using pretested forms.</p> </sec> <sec id="jrsm1123-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>The search identified 344 scoping reviews published from 1999 to October 2012. The reviews varied in terms of purpose, methodology, and detail of reporting. Nearly three‐quarter of reviews (74.1%) addressed a health topic. Study completion times varied from 2 weeks to 20 months, and 51% utilized a published methodological framework. Quality assessment of included studies was infrequently performed (22.38%).</p> </sec> <sec id="jrsm1123-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusions</title> <p>Scoping reviews are a relatively new but increasingly common approach for mapping broad topics. Because of variability in their conduct, there is a need for their methodological standardization to ensure the utility and strength of evidence. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</p> </sec> </abstract>