The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
In no uncertain terms: the importance of a defined objective in scoping reviews
Abstract
Since publication of the first key paper outlining a clear methodological framework for the conduct of scoping studies (hereafter referred to as scoping reviews),1 authors have sought to clearly distinguish the differences between scoping reviews and their more familiar cousins, literature reviews and systematic reviews.2,3 In 2010, Danielle Levac and colleagues highlighted that despite the increasing popularity of scoping reviews across a number of fields of enquiry including health research, a universally understood definition of and purpose for scoping reviews had yet to be delineated.2 Six years later, it appears that a consensus is still yet to be reached, and the great variety of approaches to the conduct and purpose of scoping reviews is most evident in a recent scoping review of scoping reviews.4 As Pham and colleagues point out, scoping reviews are an emerging and increasingly popular approach for mapping existing literature in a given field, reporting that 344 scoping reviews using a range of approaches were published between 1999 and October 2012, with almost three quarters of these addressing health topics.4 Since mid-2015 when the Joanna Briggs Institute developed its own definition and methodological approach to the conduct of scoping reviews,5,6 five protocols have been published in the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation reports, with a number more on the way.7–11 It is apparent that many of our authors are keen to conduct scoping reviews, an…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
A lack of clarity in defining the key questions and objectives of a scoping review can result in difficulties encountered later on in the review process.
“The importance of clearly defining the key questions and objectives of a scoping review has been discussed previously by one of the authors, as a lack of clarity can result in difficulties encountered later on in the review process [36].”
From Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach (2018) · cites this paper as [36]
The importance of clearly defining the key questions and objectives of a scoping review has been discussed previously by one of the authors.
“The importance of clearly defining the key questions and objectives of a scoping review has been discussed previously by one of the authors, as a lack of clarity can result in difficulties encountered later on in the review process [36].”
From Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach (2018) · cites this paper as [36]
The authors have previously recommended the use of the PCC mnemonic (Population, Concept and Context) to guide question development.
“We have previously recommended the use of the PCC mnemonic (Population, Concept and Context) to guide question development [36].”
From Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach (2018) · cites this paper as [36]
Citations
Cites
A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency
Pham, M. T., Rajić, A., Greig, J. D., Sargeant, J. M., Papadopoulos, A., & McEwen, S. A. (2014) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1123 · Cited by 3,078
'Scoping the scope' of a cochrane review
Armstrong, R., Hall, B. J., Doyle, J., & Waters, E. (2011) · Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdr015 · Cited by 1,260
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Arksey, 2005, Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework., Int J Soc Res Methodol, 8, 19, 10.1080/1364557032000119616 · DOI · Paper page
- Levac, 2010, Scoping studies: advancing the methodology., Implement Sci, 5, 1, 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 · DOI · Paper page
- Peters, 2015, Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews., Int J Evid Based Healthc, 13, 141, 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050 · DOI · Paper page
- Hakonsen, 2015, A nursing minimum dataset for documenting nutritional care for adults in primary healthcare: a scoping review protocol., JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep, 13, 92, 10.11124/01938924-201513080-00010 · DOI
- Cordeiro, 2015, Action research methodology in the health care field: a scoping review protocol., JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep, 13, 70, 10.11124/01938924-201513080-00008 · DOI
- Harfield, 2015, Characteristics of Indigenous primary health care models of service delivery: a scoping review protocol., JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep, 13, 43, 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2474 · DOI · Paper page
- Singh, 2015, The role of theories in explaining the association between social inequalities and population oral health: a scoping review protocol., JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep, 13, 30, 10.11124/01938924-201513040-00004 · DOI
- Wilson, 2015, Exploring conceptual and theoretical frameworks for nurse practitioner education: a scoping review protocol., JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep, 13, 146, 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2150 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x · Cited by 11,385
Self-citationPractical Guidance for Knowledge Synthesis: Scoping Review Methods
Lockwood, C., dos Santos, K. B., & Pap, R. (2019) · Asian Nursing Research · doi:10.1016/j.anr.2019.11.002 · Cited by 373
The Bobath concept (NDT) in adult neurorehabilitation: a scoping review of conceptual literature
Marques, S., Vaughan-Graham, J., Costa, R., & Figueiredo, D. (2025) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2024.2375054 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Peters, M. D. J.
- Affiliations
- JBI International (US)
- Corresponding author
- Peters, Micah D J
- ORCID
- Peters, Micah D J
- Venue
- JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports
- Published
- 2016-02
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1-4
- ISSN
- 2202-4433 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2294894920
- Cited by
- 108
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports (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 › Nursing › Research and Theory › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- scoping review, review questions, Joanna Briggs Institute, evidence mapping, systematic reviews
- MeSH terms
- Scoping Reviews as Topic, Research Design
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
