An Assessment of Scoping Review Reporting within Paramedicine: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Aim This study aimed to examine the quality of published paramedic scoping reviews against pre-existing frameworks to assess the extent to which they fulfil the requirements of this methodological approach. Subsequently, recommendations will be presented regarding improvements for future paramedic scoping reviews. Methods A scoping review was conducted guided by the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. A literature search was performed in six electronic databases as well as the grey literature to identify previous scoping reviews that focussed on paramedic or emergency medical service personnel. Relevant data were extracted from included articles and presented in narrative and tabular formats. Results The literature search initially identified 475 articles, of which 20 remained after title/abstract and full-text screening. There was a general increase in the number of studies published over time, the majority of articles (80%) had conducted their scoping review utilising published frameworks, and 75% of first authors were paramedics. Although many areas of these reports comply with published guidelines, there was an overall lack of consistency in the specific information included, the level of detail of that information, and the location of information within the reports. Conclusion All paramedic scoping studies should be reported with the use of a published framework to enable standardisation in the reporting, thus facilitating understanding, reproducibility, and utility. The PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews provides a checklist and thorough explanations of each step in the reporting process and is recommended for use with all future paramedic scoping reviews.

Professional codes of conduct: A scoping review

“…Scoping reviews are an increasingly used methodology for reviewing literature when the strict nature of a systematic review is unlikely to yield results relevant to the aims of the review. 21 Arksey and O'Malley, 22 the first authors to propose the scoping review methodological framework, give four reasons where a scoping review may be of relevance: [23][24][25] but variations in the execution of scoping reviews exist. 21 A rigorous framework, such as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), 25 is recommended to ensure scientific rigour, reproducibility and transparency, ensuring scoping reviews meaningfully add to the literature.…”

“…21 Arksey and O'Malley, 22 the first authors to propose the scoping review methodological framework, give four reasons where a scoping review may be of relevance: [23][24][25] but variations in the execution of scoping reviews exist. 21 A rigorous framework, such as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), 25 is recommended to ensure scientific rigour, reproducibility and transparency, ensuring scoping reviews meaningfully add to the literature. 21 As such, a six-stage framework, as shown below, described by Levac et al 23 was used in conjunction with the PRISMA-ScR checklist: 25 1.…”

“…21 A rigorous framework, such as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), 25 is recommended to ensure scientific rigour, reproducibility and transparency, ensuring scoping reviews meaningfully add to the literature. 21 As such, a six-stage framework, as shown below, described by Levac et al 23 was used in conjunction with the PRISMA-ScR checklist: 25 1. Identify the research question; 2.…”

Enhancing quality of scoping reviews in paramedicine research – guidance for authors

“…7 Among paramedicine researchers, scoping reviews are an increasingly popular approach. 8 Consistent with this growth, scoping reviews are amongst the most common manuscripts submitted to Paramedicine, the official journal of the Australasian College of Paramedicine and the Paramedic Chiefs of Canada. However, the Editorial Board has identified considerable variation in methodological and reporting quality, a problem not unique to Paramedicine but also seen and documented in other healthcare disciplines.…”

“…However, the Editorial Board has identified considerable variation in methodological and reporting quality, a problem not unique to Paramedicine but also seen and documented in other healthcare disciplines. 1,8 The aim of this editorial is to highlight recurrent areas of concern relating to methodology and reporting of scoping review manuscripts as identified by the Editorial Board and provide guidance to paramedicine researchers specific to the requirements and expectations of Paramedicine .…”