The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 5 of the 65 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
35 Not checked yet · 1 Supported so far · 1 Partly supported · 1 Own interpretation · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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
- Supportedcites [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
The citation is attached to the publication of PRISMA-ScR and other guidance; this source is the PRISMA-ScR checklist and explanation. The Discussion identifies it as a reporting guideline for scoping reviews. The later observation about reviews not citing the guidance is not attributed to this source by the citation placement. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked yetcites [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.
- Supportedcites [13] Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. source
The Abstract says Arksey and O’Malley outline a framework for conducting a scoping study, and the Methodological framework section lists its stages. The citation identifies their original framework; the observation about how later reviews cite guidance is the citing authors’ own statement, not a finding attributed to this 2005 paper. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [14] Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69. source
The citation is attached to the sentence’s reference to published scoping-review guidance, not to its subsequent observation about how later reviews cite that guidance. The Summary identifies this paper as providing recommendations to clarify and enhance the Arksey and O’Malley framework. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · hedged
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There are many examples where manuscripts are titled ‘a scoping review’ without citing or appearing to follow any particular approach [5–9].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [6] Visonà MW, Plonsky L. Arabic as a heritage language: a scoping review. Int J Biling. 2019;24(4):599–615. source
- Not checked yetcites [7] McKerricher L, Petrucka P. Maternal nutritional supplement delivery in developing countries: a scoping review. BMC Nutr. 2019;5(1):8. source
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > What is a scoping review and how is it different from other evidence syntheses?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Scoping reviews can also be applied to better understand complex issues related to the health workforce, such as how shift work impacts employee performance across diverse occupational sectors, which involves a diversity of evidence types as well as attention to knowledge gaps [31].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Reasons for conducting a scoping review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] Dall’Ora C, Ball J, Recio-Saucedo A, Griffiths P. Characteristics of shift work and their impact on employee performance and wellbeing: a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;57:12–27. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Another example is where more conceptual knowledge is required, for example, identifying and mapping existing tools [32].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Reasons for conducting a scoping review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Feo R, Conroy T, Wiechula R, Rasmussen P, Kitson A. Instruments measuring behavioural aspects of the nurse–patient relationship: a scoping review. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29(11-12):1808–21. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Whilst systematic reviews sit at the top of the evidence hierarchy, the types of research questions they address are not suitable for every application [3].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Reasons for conducting a scoping review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Scoping reviews are increasingly used to respond to complex questions where comparing interventions may be neither relevant nor possible [27].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Reasons for conducting a scoping review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Lv M, Luo X, Estill J, et al. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a scoping review. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(15):2000125. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Because scoping reviews are agnostic in terms of the types of evidence they can draw upon, they can be used to bring together and report upon heterogeneous literature—including both empirical and non-empirical evidence—across disciplines within and beyond health [23–25].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Reasons for conducting a scoping review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] O’Donnell N, Kappen DL, Fitz-Walter Z, Deterding S, Nacke LE, Johnson D. How multidisciplinary is gamification research? Results from a scoping review. Extended abstracts publication of the annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play. Amsterdam: Association for Computing Machinery; 2017. p. 445–52.
- Not checked yetcites [24] O’Flaherty J, Phillips C. The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: a scoping review. Internet High Educ. 2015;25:85–95. source
- Not checked yetcites [25] Di Pasquale V, Miranda S, Neumann WP. Ageing and human-system errors in manufacturing: a scoping review. Int J Prod Res. 2020;58(15):4716–40. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 23
- It may state two separate claims as one. 13
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In fact, it underlines the concept of integrated knowledge translation [37, 38].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Future directions in scoping reviews
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [37] Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, et al. Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):208. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Background describes stakeholder involvement throughout the production and dissemination of systematic reviews and links it to improving the uptake of evidence into practice. That supports the connection to knowledge translation, but our copy does not explicitly identify this approach as the concept of integrated knowledge translation. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Supportedcites [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
The Introduction describes engaging knowledge users as an essential component of knowledge translation and defines integrated knowledge translation as including them in the research team throughout research and dissemination. The Eligibility criteria likewise identify active participation by knowledge users as an integrated KT approach. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
In the paper
“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.”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to evidence synthesis which is very popular amongst end users [1].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Scoping reviews are similar to but distinct from other well-known forms of evidence synthesis of which there are many [16].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > What is a scoping review and how is it different from other evidence syntheses?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Guidance to improve the quality of reporting of scoping reviews
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > What is a scoping review and how is it different from other evidence syntheses?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [14] Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69. source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > What is a scoping review and how is it different from other evidence syntheses?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Rapid reviews are another popular review type, but as yet have no consistent, best practice methodology [19].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > What is a scoping review and how is it different from other evidence syntheses?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):224. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Guidance to improve the quality of reporting of scoping reviews
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Guidance to improve the quality of reporting of scoping reviews
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Guidance to improve the quality of reporting of scoping reviews
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [14] Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Munn and colleagues recently discussed the key differences between scoping reviews and other common review types [3].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > What is a scoping review and how is it different from other evidence syntheses?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > What is a scoping review and how is it different from other evidence syntheses?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [18] Truman E, Elliott C. Identifying food marketing to teenagers: a scoping review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019;16(1):67. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Rapid reviews can be understood to be streamlined forms of other review types (i.e. systematic, integrative and scoping reviews) [20].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > What is a scoping review and how is it different from other evidence syntheses?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Reasons for conducting a scoping review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Reasons for conducting a scoping review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Reasons for conducting a scoping review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Scoping review methodology is developing as a policy and decision-making tool.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Reasons for conducting a scoping review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“There are also online resources for prospective authors [26].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Reasons for conducting a scoping review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Knowledge Synthesis Team. What review is right for you? 2019. https://whatreviewisrightforyou.knowledgetranslation.net/
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Reasons for conducting a scoping review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Reasons for conducting a scoping review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Reasons for conducting a scoping review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [30] Kennedy K, Adelson P, Fleet J, et al. Shared decision aids in pregnancy care: a scoping review. Midwifery. 2020;81:102589. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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(”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Future directions in scoping reviews
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Reasons for conducting a scoping review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Currently, many methodological papers for scoping reviews are published in healthcare focussed journals and associated disciplines [6, 39–43].”
§ Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application > Introduction > Future directions in scoping reviews
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Visonà MW, Plonsky L. Arabic as a heritage language: a scoping review. Int J Biling. 2019;24(4):599–615. source
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
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-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
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
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
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. (2020) · JBI Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00167 · Cited by 9,046
Self-citationGuidance 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
Self-citationA 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 reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting
Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O'Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., Kastner, M., & Moher, D. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013 · Cited by 2,783
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
Self-citationThe use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review
O'Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.002 · Cited by 2,152
A scoping review of rapid review methods
Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., Perrier, L., Hutton, B., Moher, D., & Straus, S. E. (2015) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6 · Cited by 1,146
Self-citationRealist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research
Rycroft-Malone, J., McCormack, B., Hutchinson, A. M., DeCorby, K., Bucknall, T. K., Kent, B., Schultz, A., Snelgrove-Clarke, E., Stetler, C. B., Titler, M., et al. (2012) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-33 · Cited by 742
Miake-Lye, I. M., Hempel, S., Shanman, R., & Shekelle, P. G. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x · Cited by 660
Self-citationMeeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements
Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/hir.12276 · Cited by 570
Reporting scoping reviews-PRISMA ScR extension
McGowan, J., Straus, S., Moher, D., Langlois, E. V., O'Brien, K. K., Horsley, T., Aldcroft, A., Zarin, W., Garitty, C. M., Hempel, S., et al. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.016 · Cited by 494
Self-citationWhat is good mental health? A scoping review
Fusar-Poli, P., Salazar de Pablo, G., De Micheli, A., Nieman, D. H., Correll, C. U., Kessing, L. V., Pfennig, A., Bechdolf, A., Borgwardt, S., Arango, C., et al. (2020) · European Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2019.12.105 · Cited by 356
Blended learning via distance in pre-registration nursing education: A scoping review
Jowsey, T., Foster, G., Cooper-Ioelu, P., & Jacobs, S. (2020) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102775 · Cited by 349
All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more
Moher, D., Stewart, L., & Shekelle, P. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0163-7 · Cited by 288
Dall’Ora, C., Ball, J., Recio-Saucedo, A., & Griffiths, P. (2016) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.01.007 · Cited by 286
Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review
Pollock, A., Campbell, P., Struthers, C., Synnot, A., Nunn, J., Hill, S., Goodare, H., Morris, J., Watts, C., & Morley, R. (2018) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0 · Cited by 180
Shemilt, I., Simon, A., Hollands, G. J., Marteau, T. M., Ogilvie, D., O'Mara‐Eves, A., Kelly, M. P., & Thomas, J. (2014) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1093 · Cited by 170
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
Self-citationCoronavirus disease (COVID-19): a scoping review
Lv, M., Luo, X., Estill, J., Liu, Y., Ren, M., Wang, J., Wang, Q., Zhao, S., Wang, X., Yang, S., et al. (2020) · Eurosurveillance · doi:10.2807/1560-7917.es.2020.25.15.2000125 · Cited by 122
An Evidence-Based Checklist for Improving Scoping Review Quality
Cooper, S., Cant, R., Kelly, M., Levett-Jones, T., McKenna, L., Seaton, P., & Bogossian, F. (2021) · Clinical Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/1054773819846024 · Cited by 102
Tricco, A. C., Zarin, W., Rios, P., Nincic, V., Khan, P. A., Ghassemi, M., Diaz, S., Pham, B., Straus, S. E., & Langlois, E. V. (2018) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-018-0717-x · Cited by 100
Self-citationEvaluation of the JBI scoping reviews methodology by current users
Khalil, H., Bennett, M., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., & Peters, M. (2020) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000202 · Cited by 89
Self-citationIdentifying food marketing to teenagers: a scoping review
Truman, E., & Elliott, C. (2019) · International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · doi:10.1186/s12966-019-0833-2 · Cited by 82
Funds of Knowledge in STEM Education: A Scoping Review
Denton, M., & Borrego, M. (2021) · Studies in Engineering Education · doi:10.21061/see.19 · Cited by 72
Blockchain Technology in Business Organizations: A Scoping Review
Li, Y., Marier-Bienvenue, T., Perron-Brault, A., Wang, X., & Paré, G. (2018) · Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.24251/hicss.2018.565 · Cited by 59
Ageing and human-system errors in manufacturing: a scoping review
Di Pasquale, V., Miranda, S., & Neumann, W. P. (2020) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2020.1773561 · Cited by 53
Shared decision aids in pregnancy care: A scoping review
Kennedy, K., Adelson, P., Fleet, J., Steen, M., McKellar, L., Eckert, M., & Peters, M. D. J. (2020) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2019.102589 · Cited by 50
Self-citationArabic as a heritage language: A scoping review
Visonà, M. W., & Plonsky, L. (2020) · International Journal of Bilingualism · doi:10.1177/1367006919849110 · Cited by 45
Instruments measuring behavioural aspects of the nurse–patient relationship: A scoping review
Feo, R., Conroy, T., Wiechula, R., Rasmussen, P., & Kitson, A. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/jocn.14947 · Cited by 44
Do women and men use language differently in spoken face-to-face interaction?: A scoping review
Ilona Plug, I. P., Wyke Stommel, W. S., Peter Lucassen, P. L., Tim Olde Hartman, T. O. H., Sandra Van Dulmen, S. V. D., & Enny Das, E. D. (2020) · Review of Communication Research · doi:10.12840/issn.2255-4165.026 · Cited by 37
Probiotics and human lactational mastitis: A scoping review
Barker, M., Adelson, P., Peters, M. D. J., & Steen, M. (2020) · Women and Birth · doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2020.01.001 · Cited by 36
Self-citationTricco, A. C., Zarin, W., Rios, P., Pham, B., Straus, S. E., & Langlois, E. V. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013929 · Cited by 29
Self-citationElectronic Cigarette Policy Recommendations: A Scoping Review
Brady, B. R., De La Rosa, J. S., Nair, U. S., & Leischow, S. J. (2019) · American Journal of Health Behavior · doi:10.5993/ajhb.43.1.8 · Cited by 19
Fatores associados ao absenteísmo-doença de trabalhadores da saúde: revisão de escopo
Paiva, L. G., Dalmolin, G. D. L., Andolhe, R., & Dos Santos, W. M. (2020) · Avances en Enfermería · doi:10.15446/av.enferm.v38n2.79437 · Cited by 10
When Critical Ethnography Leaves the Field and Enters the Engineering Classroom: A Scoping Review
Masta, S., & Secules, S. (2021) · Studies in Engineering Education · doi:10.21061/see.26 · Cited by 8
Maternal nutritional supplement delivery in developing countries: a scoping review
McKerricher, L., & Petrucka, P. (2019) · BMC Nutrition · doi:10.1186/s40795-019-0270-2 · Cited by 7
Twenty Years of Business Information Literacy Research: A Scoping Review
Houlihan, M. A., Click, A. B., & Wiley, C. W. (2020) · Evidence Based Library and Information Practice · doi:10.18438/eblip29745 · Cited by 6
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 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.
- Knowledge Synthesis Team. What review is right for you? 2019. https://whatreviewisrightforyou.knowledgetranslation.net/
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bond, M., Khosravi, H., De Laat, M., Bergdahl, N., Negrea, V., Oxley, E., Pham, P., Chong, S. W., & Siemens, G. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00436-z · Cited by 852
Endalamaw, A., Khatri, R. B., Mengistu, T. S., Erku, D., Wolka, E., Zewdie, A., & Assefa, Y. A. (2024) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-024-10828-0 · Cited by 295
Implementing AI in healthcare—the relevance of trust: a scoping review
Steerling, E., Siira, E., Nilsén, P., Svedberg, P., & Nygren, J. (2023) · Frontiers in Health Services · doi:10.3389/frhs.2023.1211150 · Cited by 152
Isidori, V., Diamanti, F., Gios, L., Malfatti, G., Perini, F., Nicolini, A., Longhini, J., Forti, S., Fraschini, F., Bizzarri, G., et al. (2022) · JMIR Nursing · doi:10.2196/37631 · Cited by 115
ABC of a Scoping Review: A Simplified JBI Scoping Review Guideline
Hadie, S. N. H. (2024) · Education in Medicine Journal · doi:10.21315/eimj2024.16.2.14 · Cited by 142
Metadata
- 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
- Published
- 2021-10-08
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 263-263
- ISSN
- 2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
