BackgroundScoping studies are increasingly common for broadly searching the literature on a specific topic, yet researchers lack an agreed-upon definition of and framework for the methodology. In 2005, Arksey and O’Malley offered a methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. In their subsequent work, Levac et al. responded to Arksey and O’Malley’s call for advances to their framework. Our paper builds on this collective work to further enhance the methodology.DiscussionThis paper begins with a background on what constitutes a scoping study, followed by a discussion about four primary subjects: (1) the types of questions for which Arksey and O’Malley’s framework is most appropriate, (2) a contribution to the discussion aimed at enhancing the six steps of Arskey and O’Malley’s framework, (3) the strengths and challenges of our experience working with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework as a large, inter-professional team, and (4) lessons learned. Our goal in this paper is to add to the discussion encouraged by Arksey and O’Malley to further enhance this methodology.SummaryPerforming a scoping study using Arksey and O’Malley’s framework was a valuable process for our research team even if how it was useful was unexpected. Based on our experience, we recommend researchers be aware of their expectations for how Arksey and O’Malley’s framework might be useful in relation to their research question, and remain flexible to clarify concepts and to revise the research question as the team becomes familiar with the literature. Questions portraying comparisons such as between interventions, programs, or approaches seem to be the most suitable to scoping studies. We also suggest assessing the quality of studies and conducting a trial of the method before fully embarking on the charting process in order to ensure consistency. The benefits of engaging a large, inter-professional team such as ours throughout every stage of Arksey and O’Malley’s framework far exceed the challenges and we recommend researchers consider the value of such a team. The strengths include breadth and depth of knowledge each team member brings to the study and time efficiencies. In our experience, the most significant challenges presented to our team were those related to consensus and resource limitations. Effective communication is key to the success of a large group. We propose that by clarifying the framework, the purposes of scoping studies are attainable and the definition is enriched.

VAN MOSSEL C., LEITZ L., SCOTT S., DAUDT H., DENNIS D., WATSON H., ALFORD M., MITCHELL A., PAYEUR N., COSBY C., LEVI‐MILNE R. & PURKIS M.E. (2012) European Journal of Cancer Care21, 296–320 Information needs across the colorectal cancer care continuum: scoping the literature Because cancer care requires a multifaceted approach, providing useful and timely information to people with colorectal cancer may be fragmented and inconsistent. Our interest was in examining what has and has not captured the attention of researchers speaking to the information needs of people with colorectal cancer. We followed Arksey and O'Malley's framework for the methodology of scoping review. Focusing solely on colorectal cancer, we analysed 239 articles to get a picture of which information needs and sources of information, as well as the timing of providing information, were attended to. Treatment‐related information received the most mentions (26%). Healthcare professionals (49%) were mentioned as the most likely source of information. Among articles focused on one stage of the care continuum, post‐treatment (survivorship) received the most attention (16%). Only 27% of the articles consulted people with colorectal cancer and few attended to diet/nutrition and bowel management. This study examined the numerical representation of issues to which researchers attend, not the quality of the mentions. We ponder, however, on the relationship between the in/frequency of mentions and the actual information needs of people with colorectal cancer as well as the availability, sources and timing of information.

This examination of respiratory pathogen coinfections in SARS-CoV-2 patients will likely shed light on our understanding of polymicrobial infection associated with COVID-19. Our results should prompt public health authorities to improve seasonal respiratory pathogen surveillance practices and address the risk of disease severity.

Human-to-swine transmission of seasonal influenza viruses has led to sustained human-like influenza viruses circulating in the United States swine population. While some reverse zoonotic-origin viruses adapt and become enzootic in swine, nascent reverse zoonoses may result in virus detections that are difficult to classify as ‘swine-origin’ or ‘human-origin’ due to the genetic similarity of circulating viruses. This is the case for human-origin influenza A(H1N1) pandemic 2009 (pdm09) viruses detected in pigs following numerous reverse zoonosis events since the 2009 pandemic. We report the identification of two human infections with A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses originating from swine hosts and classify them as ‘swine-origin’ variant influenza viruses based on phylogenetic analysis and sequence comparison methods. Phylogenetic analyses of viral genomes from two cases revealed these viruses were reassortants containing A(H1N1)pdm09 HA and NA genes with genetic combinations derived from the triple reassortant internal gene cassette. Follow-up investigations determined that one individual had direct exposure to swine in the week preceding illness onset, while another did not report swine exposure. The swine-origin A(H1N1) variant cases were resolved by full genome sequence comparison of the variant viruses to swine influenza genomes. However, if reassortment does not result in the acquisition of swine-associated genes and swine virus genomic sequences are not available from the exposure source future cases may not be discernible. We have developed a pipeline that performs maximum likelihood analyses, a k-mer-based set difference algorithm, and random forest algorithms to identify swine-associated sequences in the hemagglutinin gene to differentiate between human-origin and swine-origin A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses. IMPORTANCE Influenza virus infects a wide range of hosts resulting in illnesses that vary from asymptomatic cases to severe pneumonia and death. Viral transfer can occur between human and non-human hosts resulting in human and non-human origin viruses circulating in novel hosts. In this work, we have identified the first case of a swine-origin influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus resulting in a human infection. This shows that as these viruses not only circulate in swine hosts, but are continuing to evolve and distinguish themselves from previously circulating human-origin influenza viruses. The development of techniques for distinguishing human-origin and swine-origin viruses are necessary for the continued surveillance of influenza viruses. We show that unique genetic signatures can differentiate circulating swine-associated strains from circulating human-associated strains of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and these signatures can be used to enhance surveillance of swine-origin influenza.