Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review
Open accessAbstract
Background and objectives The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews (ScRs) (PRISMA-ScR) was published in 2018 to provide reporting guidance. A substantial increase in published ScRs in recent years coupled with the omission or lack of engagement of interest-holders, including patients and public partners, as research partners throughout its development necessitate updating PRISMA-ScR. Important methodological advancements have emerged since PRISMA-ScR 2018, including automation and data extraction, which need to be incorporated into this update and reflected in new reporting items. Aligned with PRISMA 2020, this ScR underpins the update by identifying potential new reporting items for consideration from recent studies related to reporting guidance and the evaluation of reporting completeness in ScRs. Methods The protocol for this review was published and registered with the Open Science Framework and in a peer-reviewed journal. We conducted database searches in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Methodology Register and gray literature searches guided by the Canada's Drug Agency Gray Matters tool. Retrieved sources were screened in duplicate to assess eligibility. Included studies underwent data extraction with one extractor and one verifier. We summarized results and proposed additional PRISMA-ScR reporting items. Results Of the 8265 records screened, 43 unique documents (13 overviews of ScRs and 30 guidance documents) were included and extracted. Thirty-seven potential reporting items for ScRs were identified; these will be evaluated in a subsequent Delphi survey to inform the PRISMA-ScR update. The most common additional items were related to objectives (67.4%), eligibility criteria (62.8%), search strategy (51.2%), data collection process (53.5%), and results of synthesis (51.2%). Newly identified items included reporting the inclusion criteria using a suitable framework (e.g., Population, Concept, and Context), reporting protocol deviations in the final ScR, and visually presenting results along with relevant text to support the visuals. Conclusion This ScR highlights gaps in existing PRISMA-ScR reporting guidance and provides additional reporting items for consideration and potential inclusion in an updated guideline. When aligned with the latest methodological advancements and involving interest-holders, including patients and public partners, the updated guideline will enhance the transparency and robustness of ScRs. Plain language summary The goal of this project is to update the reporting guideline for ScRs. The reporting guideline is called PRISMA-ScR. ScRs collect and summarize information from many studies addressing a broad research question. They are useful because they help researchers see what is already known. They also find gaps in knowledge and inform what research should be conducted next. ScRs also help health-care workers, leaders, and policy makers make informed decisions. PRISMA-ScR is a guide to help researchers clearly explain the methods they used to conduct their ScR. Clear reporting of the methods used is important so readers can judge the quality of the review and know if they can be confident in the results. It allows other researchers to repeat the study to check if the results are reliable. Health professionals also use the information to guide patient care and healthcare planning. An update to PRISMA-ScR is needed for several reasons. 1. ScRs are not always reported in a clear or consistent way. This can make them hard to understand or use. 2. The original guideline from 2018 did not include patients or public partners. In this project, patients and public partners are involved throughout the entire process. Their experiences and perspectives help make the guideline more useful and relevant. 3. New methods for doing ScRs have been developed since 2018. The guideline needs to reflect these changes. To support the guidance update, researchers looked at current guidelines. They also completed a new ScR. They found 47 research papers that suggested 37 new reporting items. These items suggest there may be gaps in the existing guidelines. As a result, the new reporting items will be considered as part of the PRISMA-ScR update.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 9
- Authors
- Tricco, A. C., Robinson, E., Straus, S. E., Colquhoun, H., Godfrey, C. M., Moher, D., Munn, Z., Pollock, D., Logan, S., Elsman, E. B. M., Hasanoff, S., Lai, Y., McMahon, J., Dourka, J., Neupane, D., Khalil, H., Peters, M. D. J., Alexander, L., Jia, R. M., Saran, A., Evans, C., Pieper, D., de Moraes, É. B., Campbell, F., Hartling, L., Wilson, M. G., Welch, V., Horsley, T., Garritty, C., Weeks, L., Aldcroft, A., Langlois, E. V., McGowan, J., Stevens, A., Hutton, B., Offringa, M., & Veroniki, A. A.
- Affiliations
- St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Queen's University (CA)
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- The University of Adelaide (AU)
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
- Queen's University Belfast (GB)
- La Trobe University (AU)
- Edith Cowan University (AU)
- Robert Gordon University (GB)
- Global Development Network (IN)
- University of Nottingham (GB)
- Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane (DE)
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- McMaster University (CA)
- Bruyere Health Research Institute (CA)
- Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (CA)
- Canadian Medical Association (CA)
- BMJ Group (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Public Health Agency of Canada (CA)
- Hospital for Sick Children (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Tricco, Andrea C.
- Robinson, Emily
- Straus, Sharon E.
- Colquhoun, Heather
- Godfrey, Christina M.
- Moher, David
- Munn, Zachary
- Pollock, Danielle
- Logan, Sherrie
- Elsman, Ellen B.M.
- Hasanoff, Sabira
- Lai, Yonda
- McMahon, James
- Dourka, Jasmeen
- Neupane, Dipika
- Khalil, Hanan
- Peters, Micah D.J.
- Alexander, Lyndsay
- Jia, Romy M.
- Saran, Ashrita
- Evans, Catrin
- Pieper, Dawid
- Campbell, Fiona
- Hartling, Lisa
- Wilson, Michael G.
- Welch, Vivian
- Horsley, Tanya
- Garritty, Chantelle
- Weeks, Laura
- Aldcroft, Adrian
- McGowan, Jessie
- Stevens, Adrienne
- Hutton, Brian
- Offringa, Martin
- Veroniki, Areti Angeliki
- ORCID
- Tricco, Andrea C.
- Straus, Sharon E.
- Colquhoun, Heather
- Godfrey, Christina M.
- Moher, David
- Munn, Zachary
- Pollock, Danielle
- Elsman, Ellen B.M.
- Hasanoff, Sabira
- McMahon, James
- Khalil, Hanan
- Peters, Micah D.J.
- Alexander, Lyndsay
- Jia, Romy M.
- Saran, Ashrita
- Evans, Catrin
- Pieper, Dawid
- de Moraes, Érica Brandão
- Campbell, Fiona
- Hartling, Lisa
- Wilson, Michael G.
- Welch, Vivian
- Horsley, Tanya
- Aldcroft, Adrian
- Langlois, Etienne V.
- McGowan, Jessie
- Hutton, Brian
- Offringa, Martin
- Veroniki, Areti Angeliki
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2026-08
- Volume
- 196
- Pages
- 112314
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7160639092
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9
- FWCI
- 10.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Australasian Journal of Paramedicine (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Open Access Institutional Repository at Robert Gordon University (Robert Gordon University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Health Research Board
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (190036)
- HSC Public Health Agency (ESI-2021-001)
- University of British Columbia
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- scoping review, PRISMA-ScR, reporting guidelines, reporting completeness, reporting items, patient and public involvement, research transparency, automated data extraction, search strategies, inclusion criteria, protocol deviations, PCC framework, Delphi method, stakeholder engagement
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Research Design, Guidelines as Topic, Research Report
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review