Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting
Abstract Objectives 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 f...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical epidemiology 2014-12, Vol.67 (12), p.1291-1294 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1294 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 12 |
| container_start_page | 1291 |
| container_title | Journal of clinical epidemiology |
| container_volume | 67 |
| creator | Colquhoun, Heather L Levac, Danielle O'Brien, Kelly K Straus, Sharon Tricco, Andrea C Perrier, Laure Kastner, Monika Moher, David |
| description | Abstract Objectives 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. Study Design and Setting We summarize current understanding of scoping review publication rates, terms, definitions, and methods. We propose three recommendations for clarity in term, definition and methodology. Results 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. Conclusion 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1629334579</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0895435614002108</els_id><sourcerecordid>3508211631</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c635t-9439d4a34f8e7c652c052d323690290174d5c1f543cb65b3b0fa018055f8d62b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1v1DAQhi0EosvCX6giceHQhPFnYg6oqIKCVIlD4Wwl9gQckjjYWdD-exxtC1IvnHx53nfGzxByTqGiQNXroRrs6GdcfMWAigp4BZQ_Ijva1E0pNaOPyQ4aLUvBpTojz1IaAGgNtXxKzpgELqhuduT61obFz9-KiL88_k5vitVPWPQhFnZso1-PhZ8Lh72f_erDfFFMuH4PLl0U7exyaglxzfnn5Enfjglf3L178vXD-y9XH8ubz9efrt7dlFZxuZZacO1Ey0XfYG2VZBYkc5xxpYHpvJ9w0tJeCm47JTveQd8CbUDKvnGKdXxPXp16lxh-HjCtZvLJ4ji2M4ZDMlQxzbmQtc7oywfoEA5xztttVO6sIQ_eE3WibAwpRezNEv3UxqOhYDbVZjD3qs2m2gA3WXUOnt_VH7oJ3d_YvdsMXJ4AzD6y3GiS9ThbdD6iXY0L_v8z3j6o2Chv2_EHHjH9-49JzIC53Q6-3ZsKAEah4X8AUR-lfg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1628057032</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Colquhoun, Heather L ; Levac, Danielle ; O'Brien, Kelly K ; Straus, Sharon ; Tricco, Andrea C ; Perrier, Laure ; Kastner, Monika ; Moher, David</creator><creatorcontrib>Colquhoun, Heather L ; Levac, Danielle ; O'Brien, Kelly K ; Straus, Sharon ; Tricco, Andrea C ; Perrier, Laure ; Kastner, Monika ; Moher, David</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Objectives 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. Study Design and Setting We summarize current understanding of scoping review publication rates, terms, definitions, and methods. We propose three recommendations for clarity in term, definition and methodology. Results 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. Conclusion 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0895-4356</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25034198</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Biomedical Research ; Epidemiology ; EQUATOR ; Humans ; Internal Medicine ; Knowledge synthesis ; Medical research ; Methodology ; Methods ; Publishing - standards ; Reporting ; Research Design ; Review Literature as Topic ; Scoping review ; Scoping study ; Stakeholders ; Studies ; Terminology ; Terminology as Topic</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2014-12, Vol.67 (12), p.1291-1294</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2014 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited Dec 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c635t-9439d4a34f8e7c652c052d323690290174d5c1f543cb65b3b0fa018055f8d62b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c635t-9439d4a34f8e7c652c052d323690290174d5c1f543cb65b3b0fa018055f8d62b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435614002108$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25034198$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Colquhoun, Heather L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levac, Danielle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Brien, Kelly K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Straus, Sharon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tricco, Andrea C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perrier, Laure</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kastner, Monika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moher, David</creatorcontrib><title>Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting</title><title>Journal of clinical epidemiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><description>Abstract Objectives 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. Study Design and Setting We summarize current understanding of scoping review publication rates, terms, definitions, and methods. We propose three recommendations for clarity in term, definition and methodology. Results 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. Conclusion 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.</description><subject>Biomedical Research</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>EQUATOR</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Knowledge synthesis</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Methodology</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Publishing - standards</subject><subject>Reporting</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Review Literature as Topic</subject><subject>Scoping review</subject><subject>Scoping study</subject><subject>Stakeholders</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Terminology</subject><subject>Terminology as Topic</subject><issn>0895-4356</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1v1DAQhi0EosvCX6giceHQhPFnYg6oqIKCVIlD4Wwl9gQckjjYWdD-exxtC1IvnHx53nfGzxByTqGiQNXroRrs6GdcfMWAigp4BZQ_Ijva1E0pNaOPyQ4aLUvBpTojz1IaAGgNtXxKzpgELqhuduT61obFz9-KiL88_k5vitVPWPQhFnZso1-PhZ8Lh72f_erDfFFMuH4PLl0U7exyaglxzfnn5Enfjglf3L178vXD-y9XH8ubz9efrt7dlFZxuZZacO1Ey0XfYG2VZBYkc5xxpYHpvJ9w0tJeCm47JTveQd8CbUDKvnGKdXxPXp16lxh-HjCtZvLJ4ji2M4ZDMlQxzbmQtc7oywfoEA5xztttVO6sIQ_eE3WibAwpRezNEv3UxqOhYDbVZjD3qs2m2gA3WXUOnt_VH7oJ3d_YvdsMXJ4AzD6y3GiS9ThbdD6iXY0L_v8z3j6o2Chv2_EHHjH9-49JzIC53Q6-3ZsKAEah4X8AUR-lfg</recordid><startdate>20141201</startdate><enddate>20141201</enddate><creator>Colquhoun, Heather L</creator><creator>Levac, Danielle</creator><creator>O'Brien, Kelly K</creator><creator>Straus, Sharon</creator><creator>Tricco, Andrea C</creator><creator>Perrier, Laure</creator><creator>Kastner, Monika</creator><creator>Moher, David</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20141201</creationdate><title>Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting</title><author>Colquhoun, Heather L ; Levac, Danielle ; O'Brien, Kelly K ; Straus, Sharon ; Tricco, Andrea C ; Perrier, Laure ; Kastner, Monika ; Moher, David</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c635t-9439d4a34f8e7c652c052d323690290174d5c1f543cb65b3b0fa018055f8d62b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Biomedical Research</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>EQUATOR</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Knowledge synthesis</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Methodology</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Publishing - standards</topic><topic>Reporting</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Review Literature as Topic</topic><topic>Scoping review</topic><topic>Scoping study</topic><topic>Stakeholders</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Terminology</topic><topic>Terminology as Topic</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Colquhoun, Heather L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levac, Danielle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Brien, Kelly K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Straus, Sharon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tricco, Andrea C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perrier, Laure</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kastner, Monika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moher, David</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Colquhoun, Heather L</au><au>Levac, Danielle</au><au>O'Brien, Kelly K</au><au>Straus, Sharon</au><au>Tricco, Andrea C</au><au>Perrier, Laure</au><au>Kastner, Monika</au><au>Moher, David</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2014-12-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>67</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>1291</spage><epage>1294</epage><pages>1291-1294</pages><issn>0895-4356</issn><eissn>1878-5921</eissn><abstract>Abstract Objectives 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. Study Design and Setting We summarize current understanding of scoping review publication rates, terms, definitions, and methods. We propose three recommendations for clarity in term, definition and methodology. Results 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. Conclusion 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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>25034198</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013</doi><tpages>4</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0895-4356 |
| ispartof | Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2014-12, Vol.67 (12), p.1291-1294 |
| issn | 0895-4356 1878-5921 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1629334579 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Biomedical Research Epidemiology EQUATOR Humans Internal Medicine Knowledge synthesis Medical research Methodology Methods Publishing - standards Reporting Research Design Review Literature as Topic Scoping review Scoping study Stakeholders Studies Terminology Terminology as Topic |
| title | Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T13%3A02%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Scoping%20reviews:%20time%20for%20clarity%20in%20definition,%20methods,%20and%20reporting&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20epidemiology&rft.au=Colquhoun,%20Heather%20L&rft.date=2014-12-01&rft.volume=67&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1291&rft.epage=1294&rft.pages=1291-1294&rft.issn=0895-4356&rft.eissn=1878-5921&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3508211631%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1628057032&rft_id=info:pmid/25034198&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0895435614002108&rfr_iscdi=true |