Commentary
Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013Get rights and content

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.

Section snippets

Clarity in label, definition, and methodology

We offer three recommendations.

  • 1.

    We recommend that everybody adopt consistent use of the terms “scoping review” or “scoping study” when conducting this type of synthesis.

  • 2.

    We recommend the use of the following definition:

A scoping review or scoping study is a form of knowledge synthesis that addresses an exploratory research question aimed at mapping key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps in research related to a defined area or field by systematically searching, selecting, and synthesizing

A call for reporting guidance

The Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network is an international initiative for the promotion of transparent and accurate reporting of research studies. Through the use of reporting guidelines, developed using established EQUATOR processes and housed on their Web site, it would be possible to critically appraise published scoping reviews and would increase the reproducibility, completeness, and transparency of reporting the methods and results of scoping

Conclusion

Knowledge synthesis is important in health care research and practice because it can make sense of abundant volumes of primary research. Scoping reviews are an increasingly popular methodology to synthesize evidence that can be influential for policy and practice. However, variability in labeling, definition, methodology, and reporting currently exists, which limits their potential. We provide recommendations for a consistent label, definition, and methodology. Reporting guidance for the

References (8)

  • A.C. Tricco et al.

    The art and science of knowledge synthesis

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (2011)
  • H. Bastian et al.

    Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?

    PLoS Med

    (2010)
  • H. Arksey et al.

    Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

    Int J Soc Res Methodol

    (2005)
  • L. Williams-Brennan et al.

    Social determinants of health associated with cervical cancer screening among women living in developing countries: a scoping review

    Arch Gynecol Obstet

    (2012)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

Conflict of interest: No conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, have been identified for the authors of this article.

View full text