Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. Issue 4 (9th April 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Peters, Micah D.J.; Godfrey, Christina; McInerney, Patricia; Khalil, Hanan; Larsen, Palle; Marnie, Casey; Pollock, Danielle; Tricco, Andrea C.; Munn, Zachary
• Is Part Of: JBI evidence synthesis. Volume 20:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 953
• Page End: 968
• Publication Date: 2022-04-09
• Subjects: evidence synthesis -- evidence-based health care -- PRISMA -- protocol -- scoping review; Evidence-Based Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodical; Evidence-based medicine; Periodicals; 610
• DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-21-00242
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2689-8381

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Objective: The purpose of this article is to clearly describe how to develop a robust and detailed scoping review protocol, which is the first stage of the scoping review process. This paper provides detailed guidance and a checklist for prospective authors to ensure that their protocols adequately inform both the conduct of the ensuing review and their readership. Introduction: Scoping reviews are a common approach to evidence synthesis for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers across a variety of fields. Scoping reviews are not concerned with making analytical comparisons based on pooling results data from multiple primary sources of evidence, but rather on collating and describing the evidence and presenting the summation in a clearly illustrated format. Methods for undertaking and reporting scoping reviews continue to be refined. Some prospective reviewers may be uncertain how to plan, structure, and report scoping review protocols, as there is little or no specific guidance for scoping review protocols yet available. Methods: This guidance was developed by members of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group based on previous experience and expertise in developing scoping review and evidence synthesis methodologies, protocols, and reviews, as well as through experiences working with and guiding authors to develop scoping review protocols. Elements of a comprehensive scoping review protocol are outlined and explained in detail. Conclusion: Knowledge users of evidence syntheses rely on clear and transparent reporting to understand and use the results of published work to drive evidence-based improvements within health care and beyond. It is hoped that readers will be able to use this guidance when developing protocols to assist them in planning future scoping reviews and to carry them out with a high degree of transparency.