An Evidence-Based Checklist for Improving Scoping Review Quality

Abstract

A scoping review aims to systematically explore and map the research available from a wide range of sources. The objective of this study was to produce a scoping review checklist to guide future scoping studies to enable rigorous review and critique of phenomena of interest. The methods used included a review of literature, expert consensus group meetings, a modified Delphi survey and, finally, verification against recent scoping study examples. Results showed that the checklist was able to identify key elements of scoping reviews. The 22-item Scoping Review Checklist (SRC), which includes two optional stakeholder consultation items, has been developed using rigorous recommended approaches. The checklist can be used to guide the conduct and critique of scoping studies.

Working with families: A systematic scoping review of family-centred care in universal, community-based maternal, child, and family health services

“…Scoping reviews are being increasingly used as the volume of available research increases. They are appropriate for studies such as this which aim to map, explore, clarify, and inform further analysis of concepts (Cooper et al, 2019; The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2015).…”

Preparing scoping reviews for publication using methodological guides and reporting standards

“…Scoping reviews have also been used to identify social determinants of health, as well as highlight strengths and weaknesses in fields of research (Dean et al, ; Yii, Palermo, & Kleve, ). To summarize, the rationales which best suit a scoping review are exploratory in nature, for example, scoping a field in order to identify future systematic review topics, to identify gaps in the research literature, to map concepts or definitions related to a research area, or clarify conceptual parameters, or to provide a summative overview of a topic, field of inquiry or concept (Colquhoun et al, ; Cooper et al, ; Peters et al, ; Tricco et al, ). Scoping reviews that do not follow methodological guidance have increased variability and lack of standardization of operational definitions and therefore are at risk of being low quality and may fail to meet publication standards.…”

“…In addition, since most scoping reviews aim to inform research or identify gaps, there is often no formal synthesis – such as a meta‐analysis or formal qualitative evidence synthesis. Instead, authors bring together a summary of the review findings narratively, using frequencies or simple thematic analysis or in diagrammatic or tabular form in a scoping review (Cooper et al, ; Tricco et al, ). Open access guidance on method and methodology is readily available (Peters et al, ).…”

The use of mechanical insufflation-exsufflation in invasively ventilated critically ill adults: a scoping review protocol

“…The protocol for this scoping review is transparent and in line with the PRISMA scoping review checklist [18] and the recent scoping review checklist [23]. Strengths include rigorous and systematic search, inclusion of studies in all languages, independent selection of studies and quality assessment using the MMAT [22].…”