The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Evidence-Based Checklist for Improving Scoping Review Quality
Abstract
A scoping review aims to systematically explore and map the research available from a wide range of sources. The objective of this study was to produce a scoping review checklist to guide future scoping studies to enable rigorous review and critique of phenomena of interest. The methods used included a review of literature, expert consensus group meetings, a modified Delphi survey and, finally, verification against recent scoping study examples. Results showed that the checklist was able to identify key elements of scoping reviews. The 22-item Scoping Review Checklist (SRC), which includes two optional stakeholder consultation items, has been developed using rigorous recommended approaches. The checklist can be used to guide the conduct and critique of scoping studies.
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?
In the citing paper
“Three items included in Appendix 13 are not specific to ScRs: state and appropriately cite the methodology that was used in the conduct of the review and synthesis (topic: synthesis methods) [68], describe checks included to ensure that reports have not been retracted (topic: synthesis methods) [67], and specify potential conflicts of interest or intellectual bias of the funders (topic: competing”
From Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [67]
In the citing paper
“a 22-item evidence-based Scoping Review Checklist, developed by Cooper et al [67] and adapted from Moher et al, provides guidance for health research reporting guidelines to improve the reporting quality and conduct of ScRs.”
From Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [67]
In the citing paper
“This checklist presented specific guidelines created using literature, a consensus group, a modified Delphi survey and checklist verification to assist nursing and midwifery researchers in conducting ScRs [67].”
From Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [67]
Citations
Cites
Scoping 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
A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x · Cited by 10,817
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
A 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 · cited 2×
“knowledge synthesis, literature review, synthesis method, reporting, scoping review methodology Cooper et al. 231 Tricco et al., 2016).”
BackgroundMethodDaudt, H. M., van Mossel, C., & Scott, S. J. (2013) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-48 · Cited by 1,891
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 1×
“…a framework for the conduct of scoping studies, and we identified seven other studies that reported on model methodology: Levac et al. (2010); Daudt, van Mossel, and Scott (2013); Colquhoun et al. (2014); The Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI; 2015); Khalil et al. (2016); and O’Brien et al. (2016).”
MethodThe experiences and needs of healthcare professionals facing perinatal death: A scoping review
Shorey, S., André, B., & Lopez, V. (2017) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.12.007 · Cited by 96
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.04.011 · DOI
- Cochrane Library. (2017). Cochrane systematic reviews. Retrieved from http://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/about-cochrane-systematic-reviews.html
- 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02777.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.09.015 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.03.001 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.06.011 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.12.006 · DOI
- Hsu C.-C., 2007, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12, 1
- Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual: 2015 edition/supplement. Adelaide, South Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute, The University of Adelaide.
- 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03716.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/wvn.12144 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.07.019 · DOI
- 10.1258/1355819054308576 · DOI
- Mays N., 2001, Studying the organization and delivery of health services: Research methods, 188
- 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.01.009 · DOI
- Moher D., 2014, Guidelines for reporting health research: A user’s manual, 10.1002/9781118715598 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000050 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001452 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.007 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.07.005 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2014.05.014 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.06.009 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Scoping 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
Methodological quality, guidance, and tools in scoping reviews: a scoping review protocol
Pollock, D., Tricco, A. C., Peters, M. D. J., Mclnerney, P. A., Khalil, H., Godfrey, C. M., Alexander, L. A., & Munn, Z. (2022) · JBI Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00570 · Cited by 154
Lynch, L., Moorhead, A., Long, M., & Hawthorne-Steele, I. (2023) · Journal of Child and Family Studies · doi:10.1007/s10826-022-02498-5 · Cited by 58
Bourke, S. L., Cooper, S., Lam, L., & McKenna, L. (2021) · Clinical Simulation in Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2021.07.004 · Cited by 12
Self-citationUpdating 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Cooper, S., Cant, R., Kelly, M., Levett-Jones, T., McKenna, L., Seaton, P., & Bogossian, F.
- Affiliations
- Federation University Australia, Churchill, Victoria, Australia
- Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
- University of Technology Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
- University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
- The University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia
- Venue
- Clinical Nursing Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-05-14
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 230-240
- ISSN
- 1054-7738
- 1552-3799
- Cited by
- 102
- References
- 7
- Language
- en
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
