scholarly journals Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Micah D. J. Peters ◽  
Casey Marnie ◽  
Heather Colquhoun ◽  
Chantelle M. Garritty ◽  
Susanne Hempel ◽  
...  

AbstractScoping 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.

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e053819
Author(s):  
Nurlan Dauletbaev ◽  
Sebastian Kuhn ◽  
Svea Holtz ◽  
Susanne Waldmann ◽  
Lukas Niekrenz ◽  
...  

IntroductionmHealth refers to digital technologies that, via smartphones, mobile apps and specialised digital sensors, yield real-time assessments of patient’s health status. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, these technologies enable remote patient monitoring, with the benefit of timely recognition of disease progression to convalescence, deterioration or postacute sequelae. This should enable appropriate medical interventions and facilitate recovery. Various barriers, both at patient and technology levels, have been reported, hindering implementation and use of mHealth telemonitoring. As systematised and synthesised evidence in this area is lacking, we developed this protocol for a scoping review on mHealth home telemonitoring of acute COVID-19.Methods and analysisWe compiled a search strategy following the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) and PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendation for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science will be searched from 1 March 2020 to 31 August 2021. Following the title and abstract screening, we will identify, systematise and synthesise the available knowledge. Based on pilot searches, we preview three themes for descriptive evidence synthesis. The first theme relates to implementation and use of mHealth telemonitoring, including reported barriers. The second theme covers the interactions of the telemonitoring team within and between different levels of the healthcare system. The third theme addresses how this telemonitoring warrants the continuity of care, also during disease transition into deterioration or postacute sequelae.Ethics and disseminationThe studied evidence is in the public domain, therefore, no specific ethics approval is required. Evidence dissemination will be via peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and reports to the policy makers.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e031461
Author(s):  
Ana Sanader Vucemilovic ◽  
Danijela Nujic ◽  
Livia Puljak

IntroductionPsoriasis is a common chronic skin inflammatory disease. Its presentation, apart from affected skin areas, involves other unpleasant symptoms, such as pain. Pain deteriorates the patient’s quality of life, impairing their daily behaviour and functioning. Therefore, the alleviation of pain in patients with psoriasis should be one of the most desired outcomes of successful treatment. The aim of this study is to summarise available evidence about pain in patients with psoriasis using systematic scoping review methodology in order to map the relevant literature.Methods and analysesOur scoping systematic review will provide evidence synthesis of the literature, both quantitative and qualitative, about the pain associated with psoriasis, including pain associated with psoriatic arthritis. Any types of studies will be eligible for inclusion, and we will not have any time, language or publication status restrictions. We will search MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO via OVID, as well as Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Cochrane Library, CINAHL via EBSCO, OpenGrey and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. All databases will be searched from the date of their inception. Retrieved bibliographic records and potentially relevant full texts will be screened by two authors independently. Two researchers will extract data independently. Any discrepancies will be resolved via discussion or consultation of the third author, if necessary. To appraise studies, we will use a Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, AMSTAR 2, Cochrane risk of bias tool and ROBINS. Our findings will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews.Ethics and disseminationThe proposed study will not be conducted with human participants. We will only use published data and therefore ethics approval is not required. Our findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed manuscript and conference reports.


2021 ◽  
pp. 152483802110131
Author(s):  
Ateka A. Contractor ◽  
Stephanie V. Caldas ◽  
Megan Dolan ◽  
Nicole H. Weiss

To examine the existing knowledge base on trauma experiences and positive memories, we conducted a scoping review of trauma and post-trauma factors related to positive memory count. In July 2019, we searched PubMed, Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, and PTSDpubs for a combination of words related to “positive memories/experiences,” “trauma/posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD),” and “number/retrieval.” Twenty-one articles met inclusion criteria (adult samples, original articles in English, peer-reviewed, included trauma-exposed group or variable of trauma exposure, trauma exposure examined with a trauma measure/methodology, assessed positive memory count, empirical experimental/non-experimental study designs). Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, two authors reviewed abstracts, completed a secondary search, and independently extracted data. Our review indicated (1) that depression and PTSD were most researched; (2) no conclusive relationships of positive memory count with several psychopathology (depression, acute stress disorder, eating disorder, and anxiety), cognitive/affective, neurobiological, and demographic factors; (3) trends of potential relationships of positive memory count with PTSD and childhood interpersonal traumas (e.g., sexual and physical abuse); and (4) lower positive memory specificity as a potential counterpart to greater overgeneral positive memory bias. Given variations in sample characteristics and methodology as well as the limited longitudinal research, conclusions are tentative and worthy of further investigations.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e040922
Author(s):  
Bethany Villas ◽  
Uira Duarte Wisnesky ◽  
Sandra Campbell ◽  
Lauren Slavik ◽  
Amynah S. Mevawala ◽  
...  

Review question/objectiveThe purpose of this proposed review is twofold: first, to understand the role of occupational therapy presented in the musicians’ health literature; and second, to explore the potential for this role.IntroductionThe intense movement, awkward postures, concentration and emotional communication required of musicians can place them at increased risk of music-related health conditions, such as musculoskeletal disorders and performance anxiety. The development of music-related health conditions can be emotionally and financially devastating. The role of occupational therapy in musicians’ health has been previously discussed; however, no rigorous reviews of the scholarly literature have been published. We will, therefore, undertake a scoping review with the following research questions: (1) what is known about the role of occupational therapy in instrumental musicians’ health? and (2) what is the potential role of occupational therapy in musicians’ health?Methods and analysisA preliminary search of Medline, CINAHL, SCOPUS and Web of Science was previously undertaken by the first author to determine the extent of the research on this topic and to confirm that no other reviews have been conducted or are in progress. Study selection and analysis will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews guidelines for conducting a scoping review.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethics approval is not required at our institution for a review of published literature. The results of this review will be shared through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and traditional and social media.


2021 ◽  
pp. 105413732199581
Author(s):  
Patricia Moyle Wright

A scoping review of parental bereavement in older age was conducted to identify the unique needs of older adults after the loss of an adult child. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed in accordance with the stated objectives of this review, which was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). In total, 26 research studies were included. The data were then analyzed using a systematic approach for organizing and synthesizing key data. The results indicated that some consequences and mediators of parental bereavement are similar regardless of age. But, older adults experience greater loneliness, isolation, and stigma than their younger counterparts. Older parents are also at greater risk for physical decline, mortality, and institutionalization following the death of an adult child. Religious and cultural mores also have influence on the bereavement process.


2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 421-434
Author(s):  
Susana Pereira Costa ◽  
◽  
Inês Lopes Antunes ◽  
Ana Margarida Gomes ◽  
Cláudia Ho ◽  
...  

Objetivos: Resumir as informações publicadas acerca dos problemas de coagulação em adultos com SARS-CoV-2, incluindo características, fisiopatologia, diagnóstico e resposta ao uso profilático ou terapêutico de anticoagulantes ou antiagregantes plaquetários. Métodos: Realizada uma revisão abrangente, de acordo com as guidelines Joanna Briggs Institute Guidelines on Scoping Reviews e Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review guidelines (PRISMA-ScR). Efetuada pesquisa nas bases de dados MEDLINE®, SciELO® e Web of Science® entre 1 e 2 de maio de 2020. A seleção dos artigos foi dividida em etapas sequenciais considerando: título, resumo e artigo integral. Em cada etapa os artigos foram aceites ou rejeitados tendo em conta os critérios de inclusão e exclusão. Foi feito o mapeamento dos dados e a evidência relevante foi sumarizada. Resultados: Após seleção obtiveram-se 106 artigos. Destes, 36 correspondiam a cartas, 28 a estudos originais, 25 a revisões e 14 a relatos de caso; uma meta-análise, um comentário e um consenso também foram incluídos. Os resultados mostraram associação entre COVID-19 e complicações trombóticas, embora com diferentes tipos de eventos e taxas de frequência. A tríade inflamação, disfunção endotelial e coagulopatia parecem estar subjacentes às alterações fisiopatológicas. As técnicas laboratoriais e de imagem podem ser úteis para uma intervenção adequada. A profilaxia com anticoagulantes parentéricos, preferencialmente heparina de baixo peso molecular (HBPM) em dose intermédia, entre as comummente utilizadas para profilaxia ou tratamento, está indicada em pacientes hospitalizados, especialmente com doença grave. Deve ser mantida por um período variável após a alta, dependendo do doente. A anticoagulação terapêutica parece não diferir de outras situações previamente conhecidas. Conclusões: Várias incertezas persistem na abordagem dos problemas da coagulação em pacientes com infeção por SARS-CoV-2. As informações existentes dizem respeito principalmente ao contexto hospitalar e têm origem em fontes pouco robustas. Assim, são necessários ensaios clínicos aleatorizados e controlados para sustentar as decisões clínicas em todos os estadios.


Medwave ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (02) ◽  
pp. e8144-e8144
Author(s):  
Catalina Verdejo ◽  
Luis Tapia-Benavente ◽  
Bastián Schuller-Martínez ◽  
Laura Vergara-Merino ◽  
Manuel Vargas-Peirano ◽  
...  

The increasing amount of evidence has caused an increasing amount of literature reviews. There are different types of reviews —systematic reviews are the best known—, and every type of review has different purposes. The scoping review is a recent model that aims to answer broad questions and identify and expose the available evidence for a broader question, using a rigorous and reproducible method. In the last two decades, researchers have discussed the most appropriate method to carry out scoping reviews, and recently the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guideline was published. This is the fifth article of a methodological collaborative series of narrative reviews about general topics on biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. This review aims to describe what scoping reviews are, identify their objectives, differentiate them from other types of reviews, and provide considerations on how to carry them out.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e051047
Author(s):  
Rex Parsons ◽  
Susanna M Cramb ◽  
Steven M McPhail

IntroductionFalls remain one of the most prevalent adverse events in hospitals and are associated with substantial negative health impacts and costs. Approaches to assess patients’ fall risk have been implemented in hospitals internationally, ranging from brief screening questions to multifactorial risk assessments and complex prediction models, despite a lack of clear evidence of effect in reducing falls in acute hospital environments. The increasing digitisation of hospital systems provides new opportunities to understand and predict falls using routinely recorded data, with potential to integrate fall prediction models into real-time or near-real-time computerised decision support for clinical teams seeking to mitigate fall risk. However, the use of non-traditional approaches to fall risk prediction, including machine learning using integrated electronic medical records, has not yet been reviewed relative to more traditional fall prediction models. This scoping review will summarise methodologies used to develop existing hospital fall prediction models, including reporting quality assessment.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will follow the Arksey and O’Malley framework and its recent advances, and will be reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews recommendations. Four electronic databases (CINAHL via EBSCOhost, PubMed, IEEE Xplore and Embase) will be initially searched for studies up to 12 November 2020, and searches may be updated prior to final reporting. Additional studies will be identified by reference list review and citation analysis of included studies. No restriction will be placed on the date or language of identified studies. Screening of search results and extraction of data will be performed by two independent reviewers. Reporting quality will be assessed by the adherence to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this study. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and scientific conferences.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e024130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha R Lattof ◽  
Özge Tunçalp ◽  
Allisyn C Moran ◽  
Maurice Bucagu ◽  
Doris Chou ◽  
...  

ObjectivesIn response to the newest WHO recommendations on routine antenatal care (ANC) for pregnant women and adolescent girls, this paper identifies the literature on existing ANC measures, presents a conceptual framework for quality ANC, maps existing measures to specific WHO recommendations, identifies gaps where new measures are needed to monitor the implementation and impact of routine ANC and prioritises measures for capture.MethodsWe conducted searches in four databases and five websites. Searches and application of inclusion/exclusion criteria followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow approach for scoping reviews. Data were extracted on measure information, methodology, methodological work and implementation. We adapted and refined a conceptual framework for routine ANC based on these measures.ResultsThis scoping review uncovered 58 resources describing 46 existing measures that align with WHO recommendations and good clinical practices for ANC. Of the 42 WHO-recommended ANC interventions and four good clinical practices included in this scoping review, only 14 WHO-recommended interventions and three established good clinical practices could potentially be measured immediately using existing measures. Recommendations addressing the integration of ANC with allied fields are likelier to have existing measures than recommendations that focus on maternal health. When mapped to our conceptual framework, existing measures prioritise content of care and health systems; measures for girls’ and women’s experiences of care are notably lacking. Available data sources for non-existent measures are currently limited.ConclusionOur research updates prior efforts to develop comprehensive measures of quality ANC and raises awareness of the need to better assess experiences of ANC. Given the inadequate number and distribution of existing ANC measures across the quality of care conceptual framework domains, new standardised measures are required to assess quality of routine ANC. Girls’ and women’s voices deserve greater acknowledgement when measuring the quality and delivery of ANC.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. e036203
Author(s):  
Aislinn Conway ◽  
Jessica Reszel ◽  
Mark C Walker ◽  
Jeremy M Grimshaw ◽  
Sandra I Dunn

IntroductionOptimising the safety of obstetric patient care is a primary concern for many hospitals. Performance indicators measuring aspects of patient care processes can lead to improvements in health systems and the prevention of harm to the patient. We present our protocol for a scoping review to identify indicators for obstetric safety in low risk births. We aim to identify indicators addressing preventable hospital harms, to summarise the data and synthesise results.Methods and analysisWe will use methods described by Arksey and O’Malley and further expanded by Levacet al. We will search electronic databases such as Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library, and websites from professional bodies and other organisations, using an iterative search strategy.Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts of search results to determine eligibility for inclusion. If eligibility is not clear, the reviewers will screen the full text version. If reviewers’ decisions regarding eligibility differ, a third reviewer will review the record. Two reviewers will independently extract data from records that meet our inclusion criteria using a standardised data collection form. We will narratively describe quantitative data, such as the frequency with which indicators are identified, and conduct a thematic analysis of the qualitative data. We will compile a comprehensive list of patient safety indicators and organise them according to concepts that best suit the data such as the Donabedian model or the Hospital Harm Framework. We will discuss the implications for future research, clinical practice and policy-making. We will report the conduct of the review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews checklist.Ethics and disseminationThe sources of information included in this scoping review will be available to the public. Therefore, ethics approval is not warranted. We will disseminate results in a peer-reviewed publication, conference/event presentation(s) and stakeholder communications.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document