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

Abstract

Scoping reviews are an increasingly common method for conducting evidence synthesis in paramedicine. Over the past decade clear methodological guidance has emerged, adding rigour and credibility to this review approach. Paramedicine receives many scoping review submissions, and views these as valid evidence synthesis capable of helping the journal achieve its strategic vision and mission. However the Editorial Board has noted that submissions frequently fail to adhere to essential elements of scoping methodology and reporting standards. This editorial aims to provide guidance to authors regarding Paramedicine's expectations and requirements for scoping review submissions, with the hope of contributing to a greater understanding of scoping review science and enhancement of quality.

How good is good enough…and why wasn’t my paper published?

“…3 We have sought to provide guidance and leadership to authors through editorials on various areas of research methodology and process, hoping to encourage reflection on current standards and reinvigorate discussion and debate on the importance of academic discourse, conceptual and methodological diversity and rigour. [4][5][6] Change, though, is never easy. Change brings with it an inevitable period of disruption, in which long-held perceptions and beliefs are called into question.…”

“…We offer guidance on this in a recent editorial by Tavares et al 4 • Systematic and scoping reviews that fail to adhere to contemporary recognised methodological guidance, and best-practice reporting guidelines, and for which no a-priori review protocol is publicly available. We offer guidance on this in a recent editorial by Simpson et al 6 • Research submissions that are silent on theoretical foundations and/or conceptual frameworks, and that appear to lack congruence across methods and methodology. We offer guidance on this in a recent editorial by Brydges et al 5 • Survey research using instruments that on face value have not been subjected to any robust attempts to establish elements of validity and reliability, and which make no reference to a priori sample size considerations.…”

“…3 We have sought to provide guidance and leadership to authors through editorials on various areas of research methodology and process, hoping to encourage reflection on current standards and reinvigorate discussion and debate on the importance of academic discourse, conceptual and methodological diversity and rigour. 4–6…”

“…We offer guidance on this in a recent editorial by Tavares et al 4 Systematic and scoping reviews that fail to adhere to contemporary recognised methodological guidance, and best-practice reporting guidelines, and for which no a-priori review protocol is publicly available. We offer guidance on this in a recent editorial by Simpson et al 6 Research submissions that are silent on theoretical foundations and/or conceptual frameworks, and that appear to lack congruence across methods and methodology. We offer guidance on this in a recent editorial by Brydges et al 5 Survey research using instruments that on face value have not been subjected to any robust attempts to establish elements of validity and reliability, and which make no reference to a priori sample size considerations. Underpowered research that is silent on sample size considerations, and which report findings and make recommendations untempered by an awareness of the implications of being underpowered including susceptibility to Type II error. Small sample size studies described as pilot or feasibility studies, but which contain no rationale for why a pilot or feasibility design was used, or no criteria that needed to be met other than that the sample size was small, and which it appears may have been retrospectively labelled as such. Retrospective analytical observational studies that report results without controlling for confounders using statistical adjustment methods such as multivariate regression modelling where appropriate. Analytical research that has used statistical methods unsuitable to the nature of the data being analysed, for which there is reasonable concern that statistical consultation has not occurred. Non-engagement with, or a lack of adherence to, widely accepted reporting guidelines, resulting in major reporting omissions that erode the perceived integrity of the submission. A third strand of criticism centred around support of novice or emerging researchers and those undertaking HDR programs, suggesting Paramedicine does not give voice to such work.…”

“…Systematic and scoping reviews that fail to adhere to contemporary recognised methodological guidance, and best-practice reporting guidelines, and for which no a-priori review protocol is publicly available. We offer guidance on this in a recent editorial by Simpson et al 6…”