The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methods for Research Evidence Synthesis: The Scoping Review Approach
Open accessOverview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., et al. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0850 · Cited by 43,565
Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 · Cited by 36,742
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
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x · Cited by 11,385
A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x · Cited by 10,817
What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature
Davis, K., Drey, N., & Gould, D. (2009) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.02.010 · Cited by 855
Cited by
Sources of bias in artificial intelligence that perpetuate healthcare disparities—A global review
Celi, L. A., Cellini, J., Charpignon, M.-L., Dee, E. C., Dernoncourt, F., Eber, R., Mitchell, W. G., Moukheiber, L., Schirmer, J., Situ, J., et al. (2022) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000022 · Cited by 576
From Therapeutic Factors to Mechanisms of Change in the Creative Arts Therapies: A Scoping Review
de Witte, M., Orkibi, H., Zarate, R., Karkou, V., Sajnani, N., Malhotra, B., Ho, R. T. H., Kaimal, G., Baker, F. A., & Koch, S. C. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.678397 · Cited by 366
“Like systematic reviews, scoping reviews also require comprehensive and structured searches of the literature to maximize the relevant information, provide reproducible results, and decrease potential bias from flawed implementations (Sucharew and Macaluso, 2019).”
BackgroundHow methodological frameworks are being developed: evidence from a scoping review
McMeekin, N., Wu, O., Germeni, E., & Briggs, A. (2020) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-020-01061-4 · Cited by 140
Parycek, P., Schmid, V., & Novak, A.-S. (2023) · Journal of the Knowledge Economy · doi:10.1007/s13132-023-01433-3 · Cited by 131
“The literature was reviewed and evaluated based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria (Sucharew & Macaluso, 2019).”
Scoping reviews and rapid reviews
Sabiston, C. M., Vani, M., de Jonge, M., & Nesbitt, A. (2022) · International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1750984x.2021.1964095 · Cited by 74
Metadata
- Authors
- Sucharew, H.
- Venue
- Journal of Hospital Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 416
- ISSN
- 1553-5592 (ISSN-L)
- 1553-5606
- OpenAlex
- W2952955541
- Cited by
- 489
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 51.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Methods for Research Evidence Synthesis: The Scoping Review Approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.12788/jhm.3248
- The paper
- Sucharew, H. (2019). Methods for Research Evidence Synthesis: The Scoping Review Approach. Journal of Hospital Medicine. https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.3248
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
