The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prioritising methodological research questions for scoping reviews, mapping reviews and evidence and gap maps for health research: a protocol for PROSPECT Delphi study
Abstract
Introduction: Scoping reviews, mapping reviews and evidence and gap maps (collectively known as ‘big picture reviews’) in health continue to gain popularity within the evidence ecosystem. These big-picture reviews are beneficial for policy-makers, guideline developers and researchers within the field of health for understanding the available evidence, characteristics, concepts and research gaps, which are often needed to support the development of policies, guidelines and practice. However, these reviews often face criticism related to poor and inconsistent methodological conduct and reporting. There is a need to understand which areas of these reviews require further methodological clarification and exploration. The aim of this project is to develop a research agenda for scoping reviews, mapping reviews and evidence and gap maps in health by identifying and prioritising specific research questions related to methodological uncertainties. Methods and analysis: A modified e-Delphi process will be adopted. Participants (anticipated N=100) will include patients, clinicians, the public, researchers and others invested in creating a strategic research agenda for these reviews. This Delphi will be completed in four consecutive stages, including a survey collecting the methodological uncertainties for each of the big picture reviews, the development of research questions based on that survey and two further surveys and four workshops to prioritise the research questions. Ethics and dissemination: This study was approved by the University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics Committee (H-2024-188). The results will be communicated through open-access peer-reviewed publications and conferences. Videos and infographics will be developed and placed on the JBI (previously Joanna Briggs Institute) Scoping Review Network webpage.
Overview
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
Figures
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“For the latter, mapping reviews and evidence-gap maps are now considered a separate type of evidence synthesis method requiring their own reporting guidance [35], although included in the ''big picture'' review family, along with ScRs [22,36,37].”
From Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [37]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
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
Self-citationMunn, 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 · cited 1×
“Individuals who represent the patient and public experience will also be able to participate in the methodological uncertainty survey and prioritisation surveys 1 and 2.”
Self-citationGattrell, W. T., Logullo, P., van Zuuren, E. J., Price, A., Hughes, E. L., Blazey, P., Winchester, C. C., Tovey, D., Goldman, K., Hungin, A. P., et al. (2024) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004326 · Cited by 701
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- Campbell, 2023, Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different- the 'Big Picture' review family, Syst Rev, 12, 10.1186/s13643-023-02178-5 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.012 · DOI
- Zauza, 2022, There is room for improvement in the use of scoping reviews in dentistry, J Dent, 122, 104161, 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104161 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000277 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/s13750-016-0052-0 · DOI
- O’Leary, 2017, Evidence maps and evidence gaps: evidence review mapping as a method for collating and appraising evidence reviews to inform research and policy, Environ Evid, 6, 1, 10.1186/s13750-017-0096-9 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112065 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.08.002 · DOI
- Vieira, 2023, Identifying priority questions regarding rapid systematic reviews’ methods: protocol for an eDelphi study, BMJ Open, 13, 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069856 · DOI
- Nunn, 2022, Standardised data on initiatives-STARDIT: Beta version, Res Involv Engagem, 8, 10.1186/s40900-022-00363-9 · DOI
- Munn, 2023, Investigating different typologies for the synthesis of evidence: a scoping review protocol, JBI Evid Synth, 21, 592, 10.11124/JBIES-22-00122 · DOI · Paper page
- Munn, 2022, What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis, JBI Evid Synth, 20, 950, 10.11124/JBIES-21-00483 · DOI · Paper page
- Booth A . EVIDENT Guidance for Reviewing the Evidence: a compendium of methodological literature and websites. 2016. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.1562.9842 · DOI
- White, 2020, Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map, Campbell Syst Rev, 16, 10.1002/cl2.1125 · DOI
- White H . The strategic use of evidence and gap maps to build the evidence architecture. CEDIL methods working paper 5. London and Oxford: The Centre of Excellence for Development Impact and Learning (CEDIL), 2021.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review
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., et al. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112314 · Cited by 9
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Pollock, D., Hasanoff, S., McBride, G., Kanukula, R., Tricco, A. C., Khalil, H., Campbell, F., Jia, R. M., Alexander, L., Peters, M., Vieira, A. M., Aromataris, E., Nunn, J., Saran, A., Evans, C., Godfrey, C., Pieper, D., de Moraes, É. B., Biesty, L., Colquhoun, H., Devane, D., Toomey, E., Clyne, B., Davies, E., & Munn, Z.
- Affiliations
- Health Evidence Synthesis, Recommendations and Impact (HESRI), The University of Adelaide School of Public Health, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Rural and Indigenous Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- The University of Adelaide JBI, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- Scottish Centre for Evidence-based, Multi-professional Practice: a JBI Centre of Excellence. School of Health Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK
- Department of Health, Kinesiology, and Applied Physiology, Concordia University, Montreal, Ontario, Canada
- Science for All, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Evaluation and Evidence Synthesis, Global Development Network, New Delhi, India
- School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
- Queen’s Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
- Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Rüdersdorf, Germany
- Department of Nursing Fundamentals and Administration, Federal Fluminense University School of Nursing, Niteroi, Brazil
- University of Galway School of Nursing and Midwifery, Galway, Ireland
- Department of Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Centre for Health Research Methodology, University of Galway School of Nursing and Midwifery, Galway, Ireland
- Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, School of Population Health, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland
- Adelaide Health Simulation, The University of Adelaide Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- ORCID
- Venue
- BMJ Open
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2025-08
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e096298
- ISSN
- 2044-6055
- PMC
- PMC12323513
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 3
- Language
- en
- Funders
- ZM is supported by an NHMRC Investigator Grant (1195676)
- AMV is supported by a Fonds de recherche du Québec: Santé (FRQS) doctoral scholarship
- School of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide (Building Leaders Grant)
- AT is supported by Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis for Knowledge Users
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prioritising methodological research questions for scoping reviews, mapping reviews and evidence and gap maps for health research: a protocol for PROSPECT Delphi study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-096298
- The paper
- Pollock, D., Hasanoff, S., McBride, G., Kanukula, R., Tricco, A. C., Khalil, H., Campbell, F., Jia, R. M., Alexander, L., Peters, M., Vieira, A. M., Aromataris, E., Nunn, J., Saran, A., Evans, C., Godfrey, C., Pieper, D., de Moraes, É. B., Biesty, L., . . . Munn, Z. (2025). Prioritising methodological research questions for scoping reviews, mapping reviews and evidence and gap maps for health research: a protocol for PROSPECT Delphi study. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-096298
