Micah D J Peters1,2,3, Christina Godfrey4, Patricia McInerney5, Hanan Khalil6,7, Palle Larsen8, Casey Marnie1, Danielle Pollock9, Andrea C Tricco4,10,11, Zachary Munn9. 1. University of South Australia, Clinical and Health Sciences, Rosemary Bryant AO Research Centre, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 2. The University of Adelaide, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Adelaide Nursing School, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 3. The Centre for Evidence-based Practice South Australia (CEPSA): A JBI Centre of Excellence, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 4. Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, School of Nursing, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada. 5. The Wits-JBI Centre for Evidence-Based Practice: A JBI Affiliated Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. 6. School of Psychology and Public Health, Department of Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 7. The Queensland Centre of Evidence Based Nursing and Midwifery: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 8. Department of Applied Health Research, University College UCL, Odense, Denmark. 9. JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 10. Epidemiology Division and Institute for Health, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 11. Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to clearly describe how to develop a robust and detailed scoping review protocol, which is the first stage of the scoping review process. This paper provides detailed guidance and a checklist for prospective authors to ensure that their protocols adequately inform both the conduct of the ensuing review and their readership. INTRODUCTION: Scoping reviews are a common approach to evidence synthesis for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers across a variety of fields. Scoping reviews are not concerned with making analytical comparisons based on pooling results data from multiple primary sources of evidence, but rather on collating and describing the evidence and presenting the summation in a clearly illustrated format. Methods for undertaking and reporting scoping reviews continue to be refined. Some prospective reviewers may be uncertain how to plan, structure, and report scoping review protocols, as there is little or no specific guidance for scoping review protocols yet available. METHODS: This guidance was developed by members of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group based on previous experience and expertise in developing scoping review and evidence synthesis methodologies, protocols, and reviews, as well as through experiences working with and guiding authors to develop scoping review protocols. Elements of a comprehensive scoping review protocol are outlined and explained in detail. CONCLUSION: Knowledge users of evidence syntheses rely on clear and transparent reporting to understand and use the results of published work to drive evidence-based improvements within health care and beyond. It is hoped that readers will be able to use this guidance when developing protocols to assist them in planning future scoping reviews and to carry them out with a high degree of transparency.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to clearly describe how to develop a robust and detailed scoping review protocol, which is the first stage of the scoping review process. This paper provides detailed guidance and a checklist for prospective authors to ensure that their protocols adequately inform both the conduct of the ensuing review and their readership. INTRODUCTION: Scoping reviews are a common approach to evidence synthesis for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers across a variety of fields. Scoping reviews are not concerned with making analytical comparisons based on pooling results data from multiple primary sources of evidence, but rather on collating and describing the evidence and presenting the summation in a clearly illustrated format. Methods for undertaking and reporting scoping reviews continue to be refined. Some prospective reviewers may be uncertain how to plan, structure, and report scoping review protocols, as there is little or no specific guidance for scoping review protocols yet available. METHODS: This guidance was developed by members of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group based on previous experience and expertise in developing scoping review and evidence synthesis methodologies, protocols, and reviews, as well as through experiences working with and guiding authors to develop scoping review protocols. Elements of a comprehensive scoping review protocol are outlined and explained in detail. CONCLUSION: Knowledge users of evidence syntheses rely on clear and transparent reporting to understand and use the results of published work to drive evidence-based improvements within health care and beyond. It is hoped that readers will be able to use this guidance when developing protocols to assist them in planning future scoping reviews and to carry them out with a high degree of transparency.
Authors: Monique W van den Hoed; Ramona Backhaus; Erica de Vries; Jan P H Hamers; Ramon Daniëls Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Laura E Davis; Colleen Webber; Geetanjali D Datta; Allison Wiens; Sam Harper; Julie Hallet; Natalie G Coburn; Lauren Konikoff; Peter Tanuseputro; Alyson L Mahar Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 3.006