CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 893Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in ResearchClinical practice guidelines implementation

Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application

Open access
Peters, Micah D. J., Marnie, Casey, Colquhoun, Heather, Garritty, Chantelle M., Hempel, Susanne, Horsley, Tanya, Langlois, Etienne V., Lillie, Erin +5 more·2021·Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3PMC PMC8499488
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to evidence synthesis with a growing suite of methodological guidance and resources to assist review authors with their planning, conduct and reporting. The latest guidance for scoping reviews includes the JBI methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses—Extension for Scoping Reviews. This paper provides readers with a brief update regarding ongoing work to enhance and improve the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews as well as information regarding the future steps in scoping review methods development. The purpose of this paper is to provide readers with a concise source of information regarding the difference between scoping reviews and other review types, the reasons for undertaking scoping reviews, and an update on methodological guidance for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. Despite available guidance, some publications use the term ‘scoping review’ without clear consideration of available reporting and methodological tools. Selection of the most appropriate review type for the stated research objectives or questions, standardised use of methodological approaches and terminology in scoping reviews, clarity and consistency of reporting and ensuring that the reporting and presentation of the results clearly addresses the review’s objective(s) and question(s) are critical components for improving the rigour of scoping reviews. Rigourous, high-quality scoping reviews should clearly follow up to date methodological guidance and reporting criteria. Stakeholder engagement is one area where further work could occur to enhance integration of consultation with the results of evidence syntheses and to support effective knowledge translation. Scoping review methodology is evolving as a policy and decision-making tool. Ensuring the integrity of scoping reviews by adherence to up-to-date reporting standards is integral to supporting well-informed decision-making.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This editorial argues that despite growing methodological guidance (JBI methodology, PRISMA-ScR), many publications labelled "scoping reviews" are conducted without apparent consideration of available reporting and methodological tools. It calls for standardised terminology, transparent reporting, and further development of scoping review methodology, including stakeholder engagement.

Key findings

  • One scoping review of scoping reviews found that 53% (262/494) of scoping reviews had government authorities and policymakers as their target end-user audience.
  • The popularity of scoping reviews has grown, with numbers doubling between 2014 and 2017.
  • Many manuscripts are titled "a scoping review" without citing or appearing to follow any particular approach, and many continue to be conducted without apparent consideration of PRISMA-ScR or other recent guidance.
  • Stakeholder engagement is identified as an area where further work could enhance integration of consultation with evidence synthesis results and support knowledge translation.

Methods

  • This is an editorial/commentary, not an empirical study; it synthesises and discusses existing methodological guidance rather than presenting new data.
  • It draws on prior literature, including the JBI methodology, PRISMA-ScR, Arksey and O'Malley's 2005 framework, and Levac et al.'s extension, to describe the definition, purposes, and reporting of scoping reviews.
  • No systematic search, sample, or formal analysis is described.

Limitations

  • The paper states no formal limitations (it is an editorial).
  • Evident from the text: the paper offers no empirical data of its own, and its claims about why authors do or do not adopt recent guidance are explicitly speculative ("We can only speculate at this stage why many authors appear to be either unaware of or unwilling to adopt more recent methodological guidance").

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 65 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Premisecitation

    Many manuscripts are titled 'a scoping review' without citing or appearing to follow any particular approach.

    “There are many examples where manuscripts are titled ‘a scoping review’ without citing or appearing to follow any particular approach [5–9].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [5] Paiva L, Dalmolin GL, Andolhe R, dos Santos W. Absenteeism of hospital health workers: scoping review. Av enferm. 2020;38(2):234–48. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [6] Visonà MW, Plonsky L. Arabic as a heritage language: a scoping review. Int J Biling. 2019;24(4):599–615. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [7] McKerricher L, Petrucka P. Maternal nutritional supplement delivery in developing countries: a scoping review. BMC Nutr. 2019;5(1):8. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [8] Fusar-Poli P, Salazar de Pablo G, De Micheli A, et al. What is good mental health? A scoping review. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2020;31:33–46. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [9] Jowsey T, Foster G, Cooper-Ioelu P, Jacobs S. Blended learning via distance in pre-registration nursing education: a scoping review. Nurse Educ Pract. 2020;44:102775. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    Arksey and O'Malley in their 2005 publication called for scoping review methodology to continue to be advanced and built upon by subsequent authors.

    “In their 2005 publication, Arksey and O’Malley themselves called for scoping review (then scoping study) methodology to continue to be advanced and built upon by subsequent authors, so it is interesting to note a persistent resistance or lack of awareness from some authors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisereasoning

    It is not usually necessary to undertake methodological appraisal or risk of bias assessment of sources included in a scoping review.

    “Because scoping reviews seek to develop a comprehensive overview of the evidence rather than a quantitative or qualitative synthesis of data, it is not usually necessary to undertake methodological appraisal/risk of bias assessment of the sources included in a scoping review.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [10] Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid-based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [12] Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: scoping reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI manual for evidence synthesis: JBI; 2020.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    Lack of consistency in the use of terminology, conduct, and reporting of scoping reviews persists.

    “Despite or even potentially because of the range of different approaches to conducting and reporting scoping reviews that have emerged since Arksey and O’Malley’s first framework in 2005, it appears that lack of consistency in use of terminology, conduct and reporting persist [2, 4].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [2] Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:15. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [4] Peters M, Marnie C, Tricco A, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    Many scoping reviews continue to be conducted and published without apparent consideration of PRISMA-ScR and other recent guidance, or with only cursory reference to Arksey and O'Malley's original framework.

    “Despite the publication of the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and other recent guidance [4, 10–14], many scoping reviews continue to be conducted and published without apparent (i.e. cited) consideration of these tools or only cursory reference to Arksey and O’Malley’s original framework.”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusion · hedged
      “Despite existing guidance, some publications using the term ‘scoping review’ continue to be conducted without apparent consideration of available reporting and methodological tools.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 6 sources checked
    • cites [4] Peters M, Marnie C, Tricco A, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [10] Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid-based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [11] Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [12] Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: scoping reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI manual for evidence synthesis: JBI; 2020.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [13] Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [14] Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 23
  • May combine two claims. 13

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Since 2005, when the first framework for scoping reviews was published, several more detailed approaches (both methodological guidance and a reporting guideline) have been developed.

    “Since 2005, when the first framework for scoping reviews was published, several more detailed approaches (both methodological guidance and a reporting guideline) have been developed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to evidence synthesis and are popular among end users.

    “Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to evidence synthesis which is very popular amongst end users [1].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(4):371–85. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Scoping reviews are similar to but distinct from other well-known forms of evidence synthesis.

    “Scoping reviews are similar to but distinct from other well-known forms of evidence synthesis of which there are many [16].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16] Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Inf Libr J. 2019;36(3):202–22. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The PRISMA-ScR is the most up-to-date and advanced approach for reporting scoping reviews, largely based on the PRISMA statement and checklist, the JBI methodological guidance, and other approaches.

    “The PRISMA-ScR is the most up-to-date and advanced approach for reporting scoping reviews which is largely based on the popular PRISMA statement and checklist, the JBI methodological guidance and other approaches for undertaking scoping reviews [11].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [11] Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Scoping reviews can provide overviews of broad or specific research and policy fields, underpin research and policy agendas, highlight knowledge gaps, and identify areas for subsequent evidence syntheses.

    “Scoping reviews can provide overviews of either broad or specific research and policy fields, underpin research and policy agendas, highlight knowledge gaps and identify areas for subsequent evidence syntheses [3].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Scoping reviews may be iterative and flexible, and adjustments to questions, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and search may be made during the conduct of the review.

    “Unlike systematic reviews, however, scoping reviews may be iterative and flexible and whilst any deviations from the protocol should be transparently reported, adjustments to the questions, inclusion/exclusion criteria and search may be made during the conduct of the review [4, 14].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [4] Peters M, Marnie C, Tricco A, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [14] Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Scoping reviews are not designed to underpin clinical practice decisions; hence, assessment of methodological quality or risk of bias of included studies is not a mandatory step and often does not occur.

    “Unlike systematic reviews where implications or recommendations for practice are a key feature, scoping reviews are not designed to underpin clinical practice decisions; hence, assessment of methodological quality or risk of bias of included studies (which is critical when reporting effect size estimates) is not a mandatory step and often does not occur [10, 12].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [10] Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid-based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [12] Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: scoping reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI manual for evidence synthesis: JBI; 2020.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Rapid reviews have no consistent, best practice methodology.

    “Rapid reviews are another popular review type, but as yet have no consistent, best practice methodology [19].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [19] Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):224. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation

    Enhancing transparency and uniformity of reporting scoping reviews using the PRISMA-ScR can help improve the quality and value of a scoping review to readers and end users.

    “Enhancing transparency and uniformity of reporting scoping reviews using the PRISMA-ScR can help to improve the quality and value of a scoping review to readers and end users [21].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [21] Tricco AC, Zarin W, Ghassemi M, et al. Same family, different species: methodological conduct and quality varies according to purpose for five types of knowledge synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;96:133–42. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The popularity of scoping reviews has grown, with numbers doubling between 2014 and 2017.

    “Since the first 2005 framework for scoping reviews (then termed ‘scoping studies’) [13], the popularity of this approach has grown, with numbers doubling between 2014 and 2017 [2].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:15. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The PRISMA-ScR is not a methodological guideline for review conduct, but a complementary checklist to support comprehensive reporting of methods and findings.

    “The PRISMA-ScR is not a methodological guideline for review conduct, but rather a complementary checklist to support comprehensive reporting of methods and findings that can be used alongside other methodological guidance [10, 12–14].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [10] Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid-based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [12] Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: scoping reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI manual for evidence synthesis: JBI; 2020.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [13] Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [14] Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A scoping review of scoping reviews found that 53% (262/494) of scoping reviews had government authorities and policymakers as their target end-user audience.

    “Indeed, one scoping review of scoping reviews found that 53% (262/494) of scoping reviews had government authorities and policymakers as their target end-user audience [2].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:15. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Munn and colleagues recently discussed the key differences between scoping reviews and other common review types.

    “Munn and colleagues recently discussed the key differences between scoping reviews and other common review types [3].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Like integrative reviews and narrative literature reviews, scoping reviews can include both research and non-research evidence (grey literature).

    “Like integrative reviews and narrative literature reviews, scoping reviews can include both research (i.e. empirical) and non-research evidence (grey literature) such as policy documents and online media [17, 18].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [17] Brady BR, De La Rosa JS, Nair US, Leischow SJ. Electronic cigarette policy recommendations: a scoping review. Am J Health Behav. 2019;43(1):88–104. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [18] Truman E, Elliott C. Identifying food marketing to teenagers: a scoping review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019;16(1):67. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Rapid reviews can be understood to be streamlined forms of other review types.

    “Rapid reviews can be understood to be streamlined forms of other review types (i.e. systematic, integrative and scoping reviews) [20].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [20] Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. All in the family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):183. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Scoping reviews are not the same as 'realist reviews'.

    “Here, it is important to understand that scoping reviews are not the same as ‘realist reviews’ which can also be used to examine how interventions or programmes work.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [33] Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, et al. Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):33. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Scoping reviews are particularly useful where evidence is extensive and widely dispersed, or emerging and not yet amenable to questions of effectiveness.

    “Scoping reviews are particularly useful where evidence is extensive and widely dispersed (i.e. many different types of evidence), or emerging and not yet amenable to questions of effectiveness [22].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [22] Barker M, Adelson P, Peters MDJ, Steen M. Probiotics and human lactational mastitis: a scoping review. Women Birth. 2020;33(6):e483–e491. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Realist reviews are typically designed to elucidate the theories that underpin a programme, examine evidence to reveal if and how those theories are relevant, and explain how the given programme works (or not).

    “Realist reviews are typically designed to ellucide the theories that underpin a programme, examine evidence to reveal if and how those theories are relevant and explain how the given programme works (or not) [33].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [33] Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, et al. Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):33. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Ensuring the integrity of scoping reviews by adhering to up-to-date reporting standards is integral to supporting well-informed decision-making.

    “Scoping review methodology is developing as a policy and decision-making tool, and so ensuring the integrity of these reviews by adhering to the most up-to-date reporting standards is integral to supporting well informed decision-making.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Scoping review methodology is developing as a policy and decision-making tool.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Increased demand for scoping reviews to underpin high-quality knowledge translation fuels the need for consistency, clarity, and rigour in reporting; hence, following recognised reporting guidelines is a streamlined and effective way of introducing these elements.

    “Increased demand for scoping reviews to underpin high-quality knowledge translation across many disciplines within and beyond healthcare in turn fuels the need for consistency, clarity and rigour in reporting; hence, following recognised reporting guidelines is a streamlined and effective way of introducing these elements [34].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [34] Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(12):1291–4. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    There are online resources for prospective authors of scoping reviews.

    “There are also online resources for prospective authors [26].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [26] Knowledge Synthesis Team. What review is right for you? 2019. https://whatreviewisrightforyou.knowledgetranslation.net/

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A systematic review is likely the most suitable approach if reviewers intend to address questions regarding the feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness, or effectiveness of a specified intervention.

    “Munn and colleagues noted that a systematic review is likely the most suitable approach if reviewers intend to address questions regarding the feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness or effectiveness of a specified intervention [3].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Many indications more appropriately require a scoping review, for example, to explore the extent and nature of a body of literature, develop evidence maps and summaries, inform future research and reviews, and identify evidence gaps.

    “Many indications more appropriately require a scoping review. For example, to explore the extent and nature of a body of literature, the development of evidence maps and summaries; to inform future research and reviews and to identify evidence gaps [2].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:15. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Government organisations are often interested in the availability and applicability of tools to support health interventions, such as shared decision aids for pregnancy care.

    “Topics where scoping reviews are necessary abound—for example, government organisations are often interested in the availability and applicability of tools to support health interventions, such as shared decision aids for pregnancy care [30].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [30] Kennedy K, Adelson P, Fleet J, et al. Shared decision aids in pregnancy care: a scoping review. Midwifery. 2020;81:102589. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Stakeholder engagement underlines the concept of integrated knowledge translation.

    “In fact, it underlines the concept of integrated knowledge translation [37, 38].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [37] Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, et al. Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):208. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [38] Tricco AC, Zarin W, Rios P, Pham B, Straus SE, Langlois EV. Barriers, facilitators, strategies and outcomes to engaging policymakers, healthcare managers and policy analysts in knowledge synthesis: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2016;6(12):e013929. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    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(”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [35] Tricco AC, Zarin W, Rios P, et al. Engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):31. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [3] Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [29] Khalil H, Bennett M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Peters M. Evaluation of the JBI scoping reviews methodology by current users. Int J Evid-based Healthc. 2020;18(1):95–100. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    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].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [28] Shemilt I, Simon A, Hollands GJ, et al. Pinpointing needles in giant haystacks: use of text mining to reduce impractical screening workload in extremely large scoping reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(1):31–49. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [29] Khalil H, Bennett M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Peters M. Evaluation of the JBI scoping reviews methodology by current users. Int J Evid-based Healthc. 2020;18(1):95–100. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Many methodological papers for scoping reviews are published in healthcare focussed journals and associated disciplines.

    “Currently, many methodological papers for scoping reviews are published in healthcare focussed journals and associated disciplines [6, 39–43].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 6 sources checked
    • cites [6] Visonà MW, Plonsky L. Arabic as a heritage language: a scoping review. Int J Biling. 2019;24(4):599–615. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [39] Denton M, Borrego M. Funds of knowledge in STEM education: a scoping review. Stud Eng Educ. 2021;1(2):71–92. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [40] Masta S, Secules S. When critical ethnography leaves the field and enters the engineering classroom: a scoping review. Stud Eng Educ. 2021;2(1):35–52. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [41] Li Y, Marier-Bienvenue T, Perron-Brault A, Wang X, Pare G. Blockchain technology in business organizations: a scoping review. In: Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii international conference on system sciences; 2018. https://core.ac.uk/download/143481400.pdf source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [42] Houlihan M, Click A, Wiley C. Twenty years of business information literacy research: a scoping review. Evid. Based Libr. Inf. Pract. 2020;15(4):124–163. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [43] Plug I, Stommel W, Lucassen P, Hartman T, Van Dulmen S, Das E. Do women and men use language differently in spoken face-to-face interaction? A scoping review. Rev Commun Res. 2021;9:43–79. source

      Not checked in the free run.

28 of 28

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Scoping review methodology is developing as a policy and decision-making tool.

    “Scoping review methodology is developing as a policy and decision-making tool, and so ensuring the integrity of these reviews by adhering to the most up-to-date reporting standards is integral to supporting well informed decision-making.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Experts in evidence synthesis including authors of earlier guidance developed the PRISMA-ScR checklist and explanation using a robust and comprehensive approach.

    “Experts in evidence synthesis including authors of earlier guidance for scoping reviews developed the PRISMA-ScR checklist and explanation using a robust and comprehensive approach.”
2 of 2

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?

  • Scoping reviews follow the principle of mapping breadth rather than exhaustive retrieval.

    “the scoping review principle of mapping breadth rather than exhaustive retrieval161”

    From A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots (2026) · cites this paper as [161]

    The section ‘What is a scoping review and how is it different from other evidence syntheses?’ describes identifying and mapping evidence across a broader question, and ‘Reasons for conducting a scoping review’ emphasizes mapping across a breadth of sources. But the former section also calls for a comprehensive search strategy and systematic identification of relevant literature, so the paper does not support ‘rather than exhaustive retrieval’ as a general principle. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • No quality assessment was conducted.

    “Further we did not conduct a quality assessment since this is not mandatory for scoping reviews [40].”

    From A scoping review of substance use brief interventions in Africa (2024) · cites this paper as [40]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: scoping reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI manual for evidence synthesis: JBI; 2020.
  2. Knowledge Synthesis Team. What review is right for you? 2019. https://whatreviewisrightforyou.knowledgetranslation.net/

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
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., Wilson, M. G., Zarin, W., & Tricco, A. C.
Affiliations
  • University of South Australia (AU)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (CA)
  • Sunnybrook Research Institute (CA)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Tricco, Andrea C.
ORCID
Venue
Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-10-08
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
263-263
ISSN
2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3
PMC
PMC8499488
OpenAlex
W3203243032
Semantic Scholar
4b22e09b736edf44c7bdec4ae1fd3dc831132534
Cited by
887
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 229 · 2025: 280 · 2024: 207 · 2023: 131 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 2
FWCI
55.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • uO Research (University of Ottawa) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Ottawa - Library
Funders
Canada Research Chairs (Tier 2, Episodic Disability and Rehabilitation)
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, evidence synthesis, methodological recommendations, reporting guidelines, PRISMA-ScR, stakeholder engagement, knowledge translation
MeSH terms
Scoping Reviews as Topic, Humans, 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

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