A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Scoping 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.

Methods

We searched nine electronic databases for published and unpublished literature scoping review papers, scoping review methodology, and reporting guidance for scoping reviews.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.

Results

After 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.

Conclusion

The 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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Related collections

Most cited references 13

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

Micah D.J. Peters, Christina M Godfrey, Hanan Khalil … (2015)

Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.

0 comments Cited 2059 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.

K Schulz, I. Chalmers, R Hayes … (1995)

To determine if inadequate approaches to randomized controlled trial design and execution are associated with evidence of bias in estimating treatment effects. An observational study in which we assessed the methodological quality of 250 controlled trials from 33 meta-analyses and then analyzed, using multiple logistic regression models, the associations between those assessments and estimated treatment effects. Meta-analyses from the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Database. The associations between estimates of treatment effects and inadequate allocation concealment, exclusions after randomization, and lack of double-blinding. Compared with trials in which authors reported adequately concealed treatment allocation, trials in which concealment was either inadequate or unclear (did not report or incompletely reported a concealment approach) yielded larger estimates of treatment effects (P < .001). Odds ratios were exaggerated by 41% for inadequately concealed trials and by 30% for unclearly concealed trials (adjusted for other aspects of quality). Trials in which participants had been excluded after randomization did not yield larger estimates of effects, but that lack of association may be due to incomplete reporting. Trials that were not double-blind also yielded larger estimates of effects (P = .01), with odds ratios being exaggerated by 17%. This study provides empirical evidence that inadequate methodological approaches in controlled trials, particularly those representing poor allocation concealment, are associated with bias. Readers of trial reports should be wary of these pitfalls, and investigators must improve their design, execution, and reporting of trials.

0 comments Cited 561 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias

Kerry Dwan, Douglas G. Altman, Juan A. Arnaiz … (2008)

Background The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. Methodology/Principal Findings We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40–62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. Conclusions Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

0 comments Cited 437 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Andrea C. Tricco: TriccoA@smh.ca

Erin Lillie: LillieE@smh.ca

Wasifa Zarin: ZarinW@smh.ca

Kelly O’Brien: Kelly.OBrien@utoronto.ca

Heather Colquhoun: Heather.Colquhoun@utoronto.ca

Monika Kastner: Monika.Kastner@utoronto.ca

Danielle Levac: d.levac@neu.edu

Carmen Ng: carmen_hm_ng@yahoo.ca

Jane Pearson Sharpe: PearsonSharJ@smh.ca

Katherine Wilson: katherine_wilson@rogers.com

Meghan Kenny: mkenny@mcmaster.ca

Rachel Warren: rwarren@mcmaster.ca

Charlotte Wilson: charlotte.wilson@rogers.com

Henry T. Stelfox: tstelfox@ucalgary.ca

Sharon E. Straus: sharon.straus@utoronto.ca

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Med Res Methodol

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Med Res Methodol

Title: BMC Medical Research Methodology

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 1471-2288

Publication date (Electronic): 9 February 2016

Publication date PMC-release: 9 February 2016

Publication date Collection: 2016

Volume: 16

Electronic Location Identifier: 15

Affiliations

[ ]Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, ON M5B 1 W8 Canada

[ ]Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 6th floor, 155 College St, Toronto, ON M5T 3 M7 Canada

[ ]Department of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, Room 160, Toronto, ON M5G 1 V7 Canada

[ ]Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 4th Floor, 155 College St, Toronto, ON M5T 3 M6 Canada

[ ]Department of Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 1 V7 Canada

[ ]School of Rehabilitation Science, University of Ottawa, 200 Lees Avenue, Room A120, Ottawa, ON K1N 6 N5 Canada

[ ]Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 2 T9 Canada

[ ]Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 27 Kings College Circle, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1 Canada

Article

Publisher ID: 116

DOI: 10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4

PMC ID: 4746911

PubMed ID: 26857112

SO-VID: a8578fa6-eb38-445c-b063-787e4235f9ac

License:

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

History

Date received : 28 October 2015

Date accepted : 26 January 2016

Funding

Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000024, Canadian Institutes of Health Research;

Award ID: KRS-138219

Funded by: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

Keywords: scoping reviews,reporting,knowledge synthesis,systematic review,methods

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

Keywords: scoping reviews, reporting, knowledge synthesis, systematic review, methods

A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Electronic supplementary material

Related collections

Annual Reviews: Coronavirus Research

Most cited references 13

Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.

Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Funding

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 381

Cited by 511

Most referenced authors 1,255