Evaluation of the JBI scoping reviews methodology by current users
Abstract
Background: In 2014, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports published a comprehensive methodology for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews based on previous frameworks and guidance. Further work on scoping review methodology and particularly reporting is needed. To assist with refinements to the methodology, this survey was undertaken to evaluate users’ experiences of following the process methodology. An electronic survey was generated to explore authors’ experiences with the methodology and to seek feedback on the stages of scoping review development. Method: An online survey administered using Qualtrics – a secure survey platform – was distributed through invitations to a total of 51 registered users in the Joanna Briggs Database of Systematic reviews and Implementation reports. We analysed the questionnaire data using descriptive statistics. The qualitative data were grouped together, and free text comments were inductively themed and coded by the authors. Results: Thirty-one participants completed the survey (response rate of 61%). The majority of the participants identified themselves as researchers (55%) followed by educators (25%). Most participants were university employees (77%) and only 10% were based in hospitals. Forty-two percent of the participants reported that the scoping review they had been involved with had taken between 6 and 12 months, and 32% of participants spent over a year completing their reviews. Eighty-seven percent of participants stated that their scoping reviews led to further work such as developing a systematic review, a basis for a grant application, formation of a part of students’ doctoral studies, and informing further work in a research project. Some of the limitations listed by the participants were the lack of examples in each section of the methodology, especially in the inclusion criteria, and presentation of the results sections. Conclusion: The overall evaluation by the participants of the JBI scoping review methodology highlighted the need for additional detailed guidance for inclusion criteria and presentation of the results. Provision of clear examples for each step was also requested for future improvement.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Areas where ongoing research and development of scoping review guidance are occurring include inclusion of consultation with stakeholder groups, clarity on when scoping reviews are the appropriate method over other synthesis approaches, approaches for mapping and presenting results, and assessment of the methodological quality of scoping reviews themselves.
“Areas where ongoing research and development of scoping review guidance are occurring include inclusion of consultation with stakeholder groups such as end users and consumer representatives [35], clarity on when scoping reviews are the appropriate method over other synthesis approaches [3], approaches for mapping and presenting results in ways that clearly address the review’s research objective(”
From Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
In scoping reviews, there is no expectation or possibility of statistical pooling, formal risk of bias rating, and quality of evidence assessment.
“Whilst many scoping reviews can be quite large with numerous sources to screen and/or include, there is no expectation or possibility of statistical pooling, formal risk of bias rating, and quality of evidence assessment [28, 29].”
From Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
Cites
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., et al. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0850 · Cited by 43,565 · see citing works
Self-citationScoping studies: towards a methodological framework
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 · Cited by 36,742 · see citing works
Scoping studies: advancing the methodology
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 · Cited by 15,268 · see citing works
Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013) · Nursing & Health Sciences · doi:10.1111/nhs.12048 · Cited by 8,327 · see citing works
Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews
Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., & Soares, C. B. (2015) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000050 · Cited by 7,472 · see citing works
Self-citationA scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kastner, M., Levac, D., Ng, C., Sharpe, J. P., Wilson, K., et al. (2016) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4 · Cited by 2,250 · see citing works
Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach
Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-10 · Cited by 1,232 · see citing works
Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?
Bastian, H., Glasziou, P., & Chalmers, I. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326 · Cited by 1,188 · see citing works
Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4 · Cited by 1,164 · see citing works
Self-citationExpediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews
Ganann, R., Ciliska, D., & Thomas, H. (2010) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-56 · Cited by 752 · see citing works
Borah, R., Brown, A. W., Capers, P. L., & Kaiser, K. A. (2017) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545 · Cited by 737 · see citing works
An Evidence‐Based Approach to Scoping Reviews
Khalil, H., Peters, M., Godfrey, C. M., McInerney, P., Soares, C. B., & Parker, D. (2016) · Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing · doi:10.1111/wvn.12144 · Cited by 655 · see citing works
Self-citationA brief history of research synthesis
Chalmers, I., Hedges, L. V., & Cooper, H. (2002) · Evaluation & the Health Professions · doi:10.1177/0163278702025001003 · Cited by 552 · see citing works
O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Baxter, L., Tricco, A. C., Straus, S., Wickerson, L., Nayar, A., Moher, D., & O’Malley, L. (2016) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1579-z · Cited by 282 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Our response rate of 61% is similar to another survey study evaluating scoping reviews methodology of 65%.(10) Another limitation of this study is surveying authors who published their reviews in the JBIDSRIR because themethodology is cited in other journals.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialWhat are the most common domains of the core competencies of disaster nursing? A scoping review
Thobaity, A. A., Plummer, V., & Williams, B. A. (2016) · International Emergency Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ienj.2016.10.003 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Tricco, A. C., Zarin, W., Ghassemi, M., Nincic, V., Lillie, E., Page, M. J., Shamseer, L., Antony, J., Rios, P., Hwee, J., et al. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.014 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Wilson, R. A., Godfrey, C. M., Sears, K., Medves, J., Ross‐White, A., & Lambert, N. (2015) · The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2150 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Self-citationHarfield, S., Davy, C., Kite, E., McArthur, A., Munn, Z., Brown, N., & Brown, A. (2015) · JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2474 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Self-citationStraus, S. E., Kastner, M., Soobiah, C., Antony, J., & Tricco, A. C. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.031 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Medication safety programs in primary care: a scoping review protocol
Khalil, H., & Roughead, E. E. (2017) · The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2016-003140 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews
Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020) · JBI Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00167 · Cited by 7,751 · see citing works
Self-citationUpdated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews
Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2021) · JBI Evidence Implementation · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000277 · Cited by 1,461 · see citing works
Self-citationScoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application
Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Colquhoun, H., Garritty, C. M., Hempel, S., Horsley, T., Langlois, E. V., Lillie, E., O’Brien, K. K., Tunçalp, Ӧ., et al. (2021) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3 · Cited by 887 · see citing works
Self-citationConducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions
Khalil, H., Peters, M. D., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Munn, Z. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.009 · Cited by 305 · see citing works
Self-citationPredicting difficult peripheral venous access in hospitalized adult patients: A scoping review
Nannini, F., Mancin, S., Morales Palomares, S., Pettinari, G., Cosmai, S., Lopane, D., Cattani, D., & Mazzoleni, B. (2026) · The Journal of Vascular Access · doi:10.1177/11297298251374415 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Khalil, H., Bennett, M., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., & Peters, M.
- Affiliations
- La Trobe University (AU)
- Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans (US)
- Queen's University (CA)
- University of the Witwatersrand (ZA)
- The University of Adelaide (AU)
- University of South Australia (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Khalil, Hanan
- Venue
- International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare
- Published
- 2019-10-05
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 95-100
- ISSN
- 1744-1595 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-1609
- OpenAlex
- W2974443830
- Cited by
- 89
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 4.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- scoping review methodology, scoping review reporting, user experience, Joanna Briggs Institute, inclusion criteria, research guidance
- MeSH terms
- Scoping Reviews as Topic, Scoping Reviews As Topic, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic
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
