Content uploaded by Micah Peters
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Micah Peters on Sep 21, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Preamble:
The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual^ provides guidance to
authors for the conduct and preparation of JBI systematic reviews and
evidence syntheses. The JBI Reviewer's Manual has separate chapters
devoted synthesis of different types of evidence and to address different
types of review questions.
This document is contains Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews from the 4th
Edition of the JBI Reviewer's Manual, and is up to date as of September
21, 2017. This Chapter includes changes that correspond to the latest
methodological developments determined by the JBI Methodology
Groups and JBI Scientific Committee, the latest developments with the JBI
SUMARI software (https://www.jbisumari.org/) and also feedback by
users.
The online chapter can be accessed at:
https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL/Chapter+11
%3A+Scoping+reviews
The open-access published journal article can be cited as:
Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, McInerney, Khalil H, Parker D, and Baldini Soares C.
Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc.
2015. 13(3):141-146. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26134548
^Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's
Manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017. Available
from https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/
Reviewers’
Manual
Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
3
Contents
4
The Joanna
Briggs Institute
0: Contributors and how to cite… … … … … … … ………………………………5
1: Scoping reviews and evidence-based practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1 Why a scoping review? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 JBI scoping reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 The scoping review framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2: Development of a JBI scoping review protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1 Author information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2 Developing the title, objective, and question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4 Inclusion criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5 Search strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6 Extraction of the results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.7 Presentation of the results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3: The scoping review and summary of the evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1 Title of the scoping review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2 Review authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3 Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4 Main body of the report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.5 Method of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.6 Presenting the results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.7 Discussion, Conclusion, and Implications for research and practice . . . . . . . . 22
3.8 End matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4: Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.1 Appendix I: Template study details and characteristics and
results extraction instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Reviewers’
Manual
Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
5
Authors:
Micah D J Peters
The Joanna
Briggs
Institute, Faculty
of
Health Sciences, The University
of
Adelaide,
Australia
Christina M Godfrey
Queen’s Joanna
Briggs
Collaboration, Queen’s University, Kingston,
Canada
Patricia McInerney
The
Wits - JBI
Centre
for
Evidence-based
practice,
Faculty
of
Health Sciences, University
of the
Witwatersrand,
South Africa
Cassia Baldini Soares
The Brazilian Centre
for
Evidence-based Healthcare,
School of
Nursing, University
of São Paulo,
Brazil
Hanan Khalil
Monash University, School of Rural Health, The Centre for Chronic Diseases Management,
Australia
Deborah Parker
The University
of
Queensland, Australian Centre
for
Evidence
Based
Community
Care
How to Cite the Online Manual:
Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Baldini Soares C, Khalil H, Parker D. Chapter 11: Scoping
Reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual. The
Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017. Available from https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/
6
The Joanna
Briggs Institute
1: Scoping reviews and evidence-based practice
Evidence-based practice is an expanding field and together
with a
rapid increase in
the availability
of
primary research,
the conduct of
reviews
has also
escalated. Different
forms of
evidence
and
different kinds of review objectives and questions call for the development of new approaches
that are designed to more
effectively
and
rigorously synthesize
the
evidence.
In 2009 Grant and
Booth
identified
14
different
types of
reviews (Grant and Booth, 2009).
Scoping
reviews, also
called
“mapping reviews” or “scoping studies”
are one
of
these (Ehrich et al. 2002; Anderson et
al. 2008).
I
n
2005
Arksey
and
O’Malley
proposed a
framework
for conducting them (Arksey and
O’Malley, 2005). The Arksey and O’Malley framework was advanced and extended in 2010
by Levac, Colquhoun and O’Brien (2010) and then further refined and corresponding
guidance developed by the present authors (Peters et al. 2015).
1.1 Why a scoping review?
There
are a number of
reasons
why a scoping
review
might be conducted.
Unlike
other reviews
that address
relatively
precise questions, such as a systematic
review
of the
effectiveness
of a
particular
intervention
based
on a
precise
set of outcomes, scoping
reviews
can be used to map
the key concepts
underpinning
a research area as well as to
clarify
working
definitions,
and/or
the conceptual
boundaries
of a topic (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005). A scoping
review
may
focus on one of these aims or all of them as a set.
Scoping
reviews
can
usefully
map
evidence
in a number of ways (Anderson et al. 2008).
Scoping
reviews
undertaken with the
objective
of
providing
a map of the
range
of the
available
evidence
can be
undertaken
as a
preliminary exercise
prior to the conduct of a
systematic
review.
Scoping
reviews are useful
for
examining emerging evidence
when it is still
unclear
what
other, more specific
questions
can be posed and
valuably
addressed. For example, while there
are few studies on the sustainability of knowledge translation interventions in the area of
chronic disease management, a scoping review has provided the foundation for a future
systematic review to investigate the impact of sustainable knowledge translation
interventions on health outcomes (Tricco et al. 2016a).
Beyond underpinning future systematic review, scoping reviews can also inform clinical decision
making and practice
. For
example,
a scoping
review
might seek to map the types and
details of tools used to assess quality of life following t onsillectomy (Kao et al.
2017a).
.
In this case, the
scoping review
could potentially be used both to
provide direction
for
future
systematic reviews
as well as having value to knowledge users by providing a
comprehensive evidence base to aid in the selection of quality of life tools for use in clinical
practice.
Scoping reviews can be conducted to examine and clarify broad areas to identify gaps in the
evidence, clarify key concepts, and report on the types of
evidence
that address and inform
practice in a topic
area.
Scoping
reviews
can be used to map
evidence
in
relation
to time
(when
it was
published), location (country),
source (peer
reviewed
or
grey literature), approach (how it
was studied/researched),
and/or
origin (healthcare
or
academic
discipline) (Anderson et al.
2008).
Davis, Drey and Gould (2009) explain how, as useful tools for
evidence reconnaissance,
scoping reviews can be used to provide a broad
overview
of a topic.
For instance,
a scoping
review
that
seeks
to
develop
a “concept map” may aim to
explore
how, by whom and for what
Reviewers’
Manual
Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
7
purpose a
particular
term is used in a
given
field (Anderson et al. 2008). Similarly, scoping
reviews can be conducted in order to establish a comprehensive understanding of how
scoping reviews themselves have been conducted and reported (Pham et al, 2014; Tricco
et al. 2016b). Scoping review methodology was used to identify papers and guidelines that
had either utilized or described scoping review methods and/or assessed the quality of
reporting for scoping reviews (Tricco et al. 2016b). This review showed how the number of
scoping reviews had steadily increased since 2012, that there was variation in terms of how
they were conducted and reported, and that standardized reporting guidelines were absent.
Scoping reviews may also be used to develop
“policy maps” by
identifying
and mapping evidence
from policy documents and reports that guide practice in a particular field (Anderson et al.
2008). For
example,
a scoping
review
might
include
the
objective
of mapping research papers
and policy documents that concern models of transition for young people to adult health
services to provide evidence for best practice transitional care for children with complex
health needs (Watson et al. 2011).
Reviewers’
Manual
Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
7
The value
of scoping
reviews
to
evidence-based
practice is the
examination
of a broader
area
to
identify
gaps in the
research
knowledge base (Crilly, Jashapara and Ferlie, 2010),
clarify
key
concepts (de Chavez et al. 2005), and report on the types of
evidence
that address and
inform
practice in the field (Decaria, Sharp and Petrella, 2012).
1.2 JBI scoping reviews
The synthesis
of
evidence
in the form of the
systematic review
is at the
center
of evidence-based
practice (Pearson et al. 2005).
Systematic reviews traditionally
bring together
evidence
from
quantitative literature
to
answer questions
on the
effectiveness
of a
specific intervention
for a
particular condition.
Beyond
effectiveness,
the Joanna Briggs Institute
(JBI)
is also
interested
in
the context of care delivery, its cost-effectiveness, as well as patient, carer and healthcare
provider preferences. These foci are explored in terms of the
appropriateness,
meaningfulness,
and
feasibility
of healthcare practices and
delivery. These
sorts of
questions
are most commonly
answered
by consideration of other forms of primary
evidence
found in
qualitative
and economic research. The results of
well-designed research studies
of
any
methodology are regarded
by the JBI as
potential
sources of
credible evidence.
To match this
broader
and
more inclusive view
of
evidence,
the
Institute
has developed a number of
methodologies and methods for the
synthesis
of
evidence
to support
healthcare
decision-
making.
All JBI systematic reviews – including scoping reviews – begin with the development of an
a-priori
protocol with
inclusion
and
exclusion criteria
that
relate clearly
to the
objective/s
and
review question/s. A typical
systematic review
aims to
answer
a specific question
(or series
of
questions) based on
very precise inclusion criteria,
for
example,
a
systematic review
may pose
the following precise question based upon the PICO
(Population, Intervention,
Comparator,
and Outcome)
elements
of its
inclusion
criteria:
“What is the
effectiveness
of the Gardasil vaccine compared with the Cervarix vaccine in
preventing
Human
Papillomavirus infection
in
adolescent
and young adult women?”
It is clear from this question that only certain types of quantitative evidence and data would
be relevant and that the review will be very specific in terms of the population, intervention,
comparator, and kinds of outcomes
against
which it will
measure
effectiveness.
A scoping review will have a broader “scope” with correspondingly less restrictive inclusion
criteria. The following question based
upon the
PCC (Population,
Concept
and Context)
elements
of the
inclusion criteria
may be posed:
“What types of
neurological
reactions to the Human
Papillomavirus
vaccination have been
reported?”
This
question
leaves
the
population rather
“open” and
implies
that both men and women of any
age will
be
suitable for inclusion as long as they have received
a
HPV vaccination. The
intervention
in this
example
is
also
‘open’ to
any
kind of
HPV vaccine
and does not
stipulate
that
there will
be
any kind of
measurement
of outcomes or comparison
involved.
The “concept” of this scoping
review (neurological reactions)
is also broad, and could cover any kind of
neurological
outcome
as long as it is a reaction to HPV vaccination. For this particular question, the ‘context’ has
also been left open, so the
evidence
may come from any context
(e.g. geographical,
healthcare
setting, sociocultural).
Reviewers’
Manual
Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
9
An
especially
important point is that the scoping
review
question may draw upon data from any
type of
evidence
and
research
methodology, and is not restricted to
quantitative
studies (or any
other study
design) alone. This however
is not
prescriptive; reviewers
may decide that particular
study
designs
would be
beyond
the scope of
their scoping review,
or not be
appropriate
or useful
for
consideration
. For example, in the protocol, this scoping review example may specify that
text and opinion
literature
will not be included.
Because
of the broad
nature
of scoping
reviews,
they
are particularly useful
for
bringing
together evidence from disparate or heterogeneous
sources. In the example scoping review question regarding HPV vaccination
above,
reports
of
neurological side effects
such as
syncope (fainting)
from
randomized
controlled trials can be
considered side by side with qualitative accounts of patients’ experiences of
paralysis
following HPV
vaccination.
It
is
important
to
highlight
the
distinction
between
scoping
reviews
and
“mixed methods”
systematic
reviews
that also rely on
evidence
from a number of
different
study
designs (Pearson et al.
2015). While
in a scoping
review
the goal is to
determine
what kind of
evidence (quantitative
and/or
qualitative)
is available on the topic and to represent this evidence by mapping or
charting the data, mixed methods systematic reviews are designed to answer a question or
questions based on the synthesis of evidence from for example qualitative, quantitative and
economic research (Reilly et al. 2016).
For example:
“What is the effectiveness, cost effectiveness, acceptability and implementation
barriers/enablers for chronic kidney disease management programs for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Australians?”
The goal of this mixed methods systematic review was to:
i)
report on a the
effectiveness
of chronic kidney disease management programs from
quantitative evidence
of
effectiveness,
ii)
report on the
relative cost-effectives
of chronic kidney disease management programs
from
economic evidence, and to
iii) examine
the
experiences
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Australians and healthcare providers regarding chronic kidney disease management
programs in terms of acceptability as well as barriers and enablers of implementation..
Following separate methodological quality assessment, data extraction and synthesis, the
results of each synthesis were then brought together in a comprehensive synthesis using
evidence from each research type to answer a specific question. In this example, the
knowledge gained from the
qualitative and e co no mi c
evidence can be used to
enhance
the knowledge
gained
from the
quantitative
evidence.
Another important distinction between scoping reviews and systematic reviews is that, unlike
systematic reviews, scoping reviews provide an overview of the existing evidence, regardless
of quality. This is because scoping reviews aim to provide a map of what evidence has been
produced
as
opposed to
seeking only
the best
available evidence
to
answer
more specific
questions related to policy and practice. Hence, unless otherwise specified, a formal
assessment of
methodological quality
of the
included
studies of a scoping
review
is
generally
not performed or congruent with the purpose of scoping reviews.
While implications
for
research, including
for primary research, other scoping reviews, or
systematic reviews,
may be generated from the results of a scoping review – especially those
conducted with the objective of being precursors to systematic
reviews, implications
for
practice are limited by the fact that a formal
assessment
of
methodological quality
of the
included studies
of a scoping
review
is
generally
not
performed. If implications
for practice
are
10
The Joanna
Briggs Institute
developed,
it is
expected
that they
will clearly
flow from the
objectives
of the scoping review.
1.3 The scoping review framework
The framework
proposed by
Arksey
and
O’Malley (2005)
has been
influential
in the conduct of scoping reviews for some time. Their
framework has been further enhanced by the work of Levac, Colquhoun and O’Brien (2010) (see Table 11.1). Levac and colleagues
(2010) provide more explicit detail regarding what occurs at each stage of the review process and this
enhancement
increases both the
clarity
and rigor of the
review
process. Both of these
frameworks have
been drawn on in the
development
of the JBI approach to the conduct of
scoping reviews (Peters et al. 2015).
Table 11.1: Scoping review
frameworks
Arksey
and
O’Malley framework
(
2005, p. 22-23)
Enhancements proposed by Levac,
Colquhoun
and
O’Brien. (2010, p. 4-8)
Enhancements proposed by Peters et
al (2015).
1.
Identifying
the
research
question
Clarifying and linking the purpose and
research
question
Defining and aligning the objective/s
and question/s
2.
Identifying relevant
studies
Balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of
the scoping process
Developing and aligning the inclusion
criteria with the objective/s and
question/s
3.
Study selection
Using an iterative team approach to
selecting
studies and
extracting
data
Describing the planned approach to
evidence searching, selection,
extraction, and charting
4.
Charting
the data
Incorporating a numerical summary and
qualitative
thematic
analysis
Searching for the evidence
5.
Collating, summarizing and
reporting the results
Identifying the implications of the study
findings
for policy,
practice or research
Selecting the evidence
6.
Consultation
(optional)
Adopting consultation as a required component of
scoping
study methodology
Extracting the evidence
7.
Charting the evidence
8.
Summarizing the evidence in relation
to the objective/s and question/s
9.
Consultation of information scientists,
librarians, and/or experts (throughout)
10
The Joanna
Briggs Institute
2: Development of a JBI scoping review protocol
As with all systematic reviews using JBI methodologies, an a-priori protocol must be
developed before undertaking the scoping
review.
A scoping
review
protocol is important as it
pre-defines
the
objectives
and methods of the scoping
review.
It is a
systematic
approach to
the conduct and reporting of the review and allows
transparency
of process. This in turn
allows readers to see how the results of the scoping
review
were
arrived
at. The protocol
should detail the criteria that the reviewers intend on
using
to
include
and
exclude studies
and
to
identify
what data is
relevant,
and how the data will be extracted and mapped.
The
protocol
provides
the plan for the scoping
review
and is important in
limiting
the
occurrence
of
reporting
bias. Any deviations
of the scoping
review
report from the protocol should be
clearly
addressed
and
explained
in the scoping
review
report. It is also
recommended
that
all
scoping
reviews
should contain the
following
sentence:
“The objectives, inclusion criteria and methods for this scoping review were specified in
advance
and documented in a protocol.” (citation)
The citation should be to the
corresponding
protocol which may be published in the JBI
Database
of Systematic
Reviews
and Implementation Reports. Reviewers should also be
aware that PROSPERO (the international prospective register of systematic reviews administered
by the University of York’s Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) states that scoping reviews (and
literature reviews) are currently ineligible for registration in the database (Centre for Reviews and
Dissemination, n.d. ‘inclusion criteria’, para. 5) despite appearing to contain a small number of
recently registered scoping reviews. In
accordance
with the
recommendations
for
reporting
of
systematic reviews detailed in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analyses
(PRISMA) guidelines,
this
sentence should appear
as the
final line
of the
background/introduction section of the
review
report. Another point prospective scoping
reviewers should be aware of is that an extension of the PRISMA statement called the
PRISMA-ScR is currently under development and registered with the Enhancing the Quality
and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network (Tricco, Strauss and Moher,
2015). Led by Tricco, Strauss and Moher, this reporting checklist is being developed with the
involvement of numerous international experts on scoping review methodology and evidence
synthesis including authors of the JBI methodological guidance described in this chapter.
The JBI approach to conducting and reporting scoping reviews described here and in Peters
et al. (2015) will be congruent with the PRISMA-ScR checklist which will assist in
standardizing the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. Reviewers are therefore
encouraged to use and cite the JBI methodology (Peters et al. 2015) and also indicate their
compliance with the PRISMA-ScR checklist when it becomes available.
2.1 Author information
All
reviews using JBI methodologies require
at least two
reviewers
in order to
minimize
reporting
bias. The names of all
reviewers, institutional affiliations
,
and
JBI center affiliations (if relevant),
and
email
address for the
corresponding
author must be included.
2.2 Developing the title, objective, and question
Title of the scoping review
protocol
The
title of the protocol (and the subsequent review) should be
informative
and
give
a
clear indication
of the topic of the scoping
review.
It is recommended that the title should always include the
Reviewers’
Manual
Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
1
1
phrase “…: a scoping review” to allow
easy identification
of the type of document it
represents.
Correspondingly, protocols should also be identified as such.
This is a simple
example
of a
scoping
review protocol
title by Mordiffi, Peters and Ang, 2016):
“Non-invasive thermometers used in healthcare facilities: A scoping review protocol
”
Scoping
review
titles should not be phrased as
questions.
For example:
“What types non-invasive thermometers have been used in healthcare facilities?”
The JBI uses a range
of
mnemonics for different types
of
review (and
research)
questions.
It is
suggested
that the “PCC”
mnemonic
be used as a guide to construct a
clear
and meaningful
title for a scoping review. The PCC mnemonic stands for the Population, Concept, and
Context. There is no need for explicit outcomes,
interventions
or phenomena of interest to be
stated for a scoping
review; however elements
of each of these may be implicit in the Concept
under examination.
Reviewers’
Manual
Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
11
The title of the protocol (and subsequent review) should be structured to reflect the core
elements
of the PCC.
Using
the
PCC mnemonic helps
to construct
a title that provides potential
readers with important
information about the focus and scope of the
review,
and its
applicability
to their needs. For
example,
if the
review aims
to map a
range
of devices as part of the concept
(such
as
non-invasive thermometers
) this should be stated in the title. Including the context in
the title helps readers to position the
review
when they are
searching
for
evidence related
to
their own
particular information
needs.
As discussed in further depth below, there should be congruence between the title, review
objective/s, question/s and
inclusion
criteria.
Scoping review
objectives
The objective of a scoping review must be
clearly
stated and be congruent with the title. The
objective of the scoping review should indicate what the scoping review project is trying to
achieve. The objective may
be broad and
will guide
the scope of the
enquiry. For
the
title
example
above,
the
objective
has been phrased:
“The objective of the review is to map the available evidence to provide an overview of
the use of non-invasive thermometers in the general context of health care.” (Mordiffi,
Peters and Ang, 2016, p. 106)
The
objective
should also
clearly
underpin the question posed by the scoping
review
and direct
the
development
of the specific
inclusion criteria
based on
clearly identifiable
PCC. Further
considerations around the importance of clearly identifying the objective/s and review
question/s for scoping reviews has been discussed elsewhere (Peters, 2016).
Scoping review
questions
The
scoping
review question guides
and directs the
development
of the
specific inclusion
criteria
for the scoping
review. Clarity
in the
review question assists
in
developing
the protocol, facilitates
effectiveness
in the
literature
search, and provides a clear structure for the
development
of the
scoping review report. As with the title, the question should incorporate the PCC elements. A
scoping
review
will
generally have
one
primary question,
e.g.
“What quality of life questionnaires are available for pediatric patients following
tonsillectomies with or without adenoidectomies for chronic infections or sleep-disordered
breathing?” (Kao, Peters and Ooi, 2017a, p. 1).
If that
question sufficiently addresses
the PCC and
adequately
corresponds with the
objective
of
the
review,
sub questions will not be needed.
However,
some scoping
review
questions benefit
from one or more sub questions that delve into particular attributes of Context, Population or
Concept. Sub
questions
can be
useful
in
outlining
how the
evidence
is
likely
to be mapped. For
example,
the
primary question relates
to the broad
population; however,
the sub
questions
delve
into
potential particular issues relate
to
males
or
particular
age groups of
females
as distinct sub
populations
may be
relevant. Likewise,
a sub
question
may help to
justify
mapping the evidence
by context, e.g.
“What nutritional screening instruments have been validated for use for the adult
population in primary healthcare settings?” (Håkonsen et al. 2015, p. 92).
2.3 Background
The background section should be
comprehensive
and cover all the main
elements
of the topic
12
The Joanna
Briggs Institute
under review. Due to scoping reviews being
essentially exploratory,
it is not expected that the
background covers the extant knowledge in the area under
review.
The
reason
for undertaking
the scoping review should be
clearly
stated together with what the scoping review is intended
to inform.
Reviewers’
Manual
Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
13
For publication in the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, the
suggested length
for the background
section
of the
scoping review
protocol is approximately
1000 words. The background should detail any definitions important to the topic of interest.
The
information
in the background section must also be
sufficient
to put the
inclusion criteria
in
context,
including
an
indication
of whether or not there are
existing scoping reviews, systematic
reviews,
research syntheses,
and/or
primary research papers available
on the topic,
hence
supporting
the
rationale
to conduct the scoping review. While the inclusion criteria section of
the protocol (explained below) should contain clear details of each of the PCC elements, the
background must provide sufficient detail in terms of the rationale for each element.
Explaining for example, why only primary care settings are of interest in terms of the context
of the review question above.
The
background section should conclude with a
statement
that a
preliminary search
for existing
scoping
reviews (and ideally systematic reviews too)
on the topic has
been
conducted.
The date
of the search/es and databases searched
or
search
platforms utilized must be stated, e.g.
J B I
Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports,
Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews, CINAHL,
PubMed, EPPI, and Epistemonikos, where relevant. If existing
reviews or systematic reviews are
available on the topic, a
justification
that specifies how the
proposed review will differ from those already conducted should be
detailed. This is so that
readers can easily establish what new knowledge or insight the proposed review will contain in
relation to existing evidence syntheses.
For p ublication in t he
JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports,
The
Vancouver style
of
referencing
should be used throughout the protocol with superscript
numbers
without brackets, used for in-text citations. A guide to the
Vancouver style
of
referencing
can be
found at: http://openjour
nals.net/files/Ref/VANCOUVER%20Refer
ence%20guide.pdf
2.4 Inclusion criteria
The
“inclusion
criteria” of the protocol
details
the basis on which sources will be considered for
inclusion
in the scoping
review
and should be
clearly
defined.
These criteria
provide a guide for
the
reader
to
clearly understand
what
is
proposed by the
reviewers
and,
more importantly,
a guide
for the
reviewers themselves
on which to base
decisions
about the
sources
to be
included
in the
scoping
review.
As
explained
above, as for other
review
types, there must be clear congruence
between the tile,
objective/s,
question/s, and
inclusion criteria
of a scoping review.
Types
of participants
Important characteristics
of
participants should
be
detailed, including age and other
qualifying
criteria
that
make
them
appropriate
for the
objectives
of the
scoping review
and for the review
question. In the example question above regarding pediatric tonsillectomy quality of life
assessment instruments, these characteristics included pediatric patients 16 years of
age or younger undergoing tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy for
chronic tonsillitis or sleep-disordered breathing.
. Justification
for the
inclusion
or
exclusion of participants should be
explained. Confounding
population factors, e.g. co-
morbidities or co-existing conditions
(e.g. congenital heart defects),
can also be
detailed here
as
exclusion
criteria.
Concept
14
The Joanna
Briggs Institute
The core concept examined by the scoping review should be clearly articulated to guide
the scope and breadth of the inquiry. This may include details that pertain to elements
that would be detailed in a standard systematic review, such as the “interventions” and/
or
“phenomena
of interest” and/or “outcomes”. For
example,
quality of life assessment
tools
– which could be understood to be
interventions or approaches to measuring outcomes
– was part of the concept of a scoping
review
designed to map the types and details of
existing tools . It would then be necessary to explain any relevant details
pertaining
to
the
concept
that may be important for the
review,
for
example, whether
only
particular tools
are
to be
investigated (e.g. validated tools only)
or
whether any/all tools
are
eligible for
inclusion.
Reviewers’
Manual
Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
13
Outcomes may also
be a component of a
scoping review’s
“Concept”.
If
outcomes of interest
are
to be
explained, they should
be
linked closely
to the
objective and purpose for
undertaking
the scoping review. For example, the exemplar review was also concerned with mapping the
outcomes of any psychometric assessments that had been used to measure the validity, reliability, and
responsiveness to change of included quality of life tools. Details of this
were
also a part of the
“Concept” in terms of defining psychometric testing as well as the different types of
validity outcomes being sought (e.g. construct and criterion).
Context
The “Context” element of a scoping review of will vary depending on the objective/s
and
question/s
of the review. The context should be clearly defined and may include, but
is not limited to,
consideration
of cultural factors such as geographic location and/or
specific
racial
or
gender-based interests.
In some cases, context may also encompass
details
about the specific setting (such as acute care, primary health care or the
community).
Reviewers may choose to limit the context of their review to a particular
country or health system or
healthcare
setting,
depending
on the topic and objectives.
In the scoping review example above, quality of life assessment tools were broadly
sought from within the context of pediatric care both pre- and/or postoperatively.
Types of
sources
For the purposes of a scoping review, the “source” of information can include any existing
literature,
e.g. primary research studies, systematic
reviews, meta-analyses,
letters, guidelines,
websites etc.
Reviewers
may wish to
leave
the source of
information
“open” to allow for the
inclusion
of any and
all
sources.
Otherwise,
the
reviewers
may wish to impose
limits
on the
types of sources they wish to include. This may be done on the basis of
having
some
knowledge of the types of
sources
that would be most
useful
and
appropriate
for a
particular
topic.
For example,
the scoping
review
example on quality of life assessment tools sought only
quantitative studies based upon the knowledge that qualitative papers focusing on peoples’
experiences were unlikely to contain relevant details regarding the tools themselves or the
results of psychometric testing as as such would not be particularly
appropriate
or
useful
for
meeting the
objectives
of the review.
2.5 Search strategy
The search strategy
for a
scoping review should ideally aim
to be as
comprehensive as possible
within the constraints of time and resources in order
to
identify
both
published
and
unpublished
(grey literature) primary studies
as
well
as
reviews. Any limitations in terms of the breadth and
comprehensiveness of the search strategy should be detailed and justified.
As
recommended in
all
JBI types of
reviews,
a
three-step search strategy
is to be
utilized. Each
step
must be clearly stated in this
section
of the protocol.
The
first step is an
initial limited search
of at
least
two appropriate online
databases relevant
to the topic.
The databases MEDLINE (PubMed)
and
CINAHL
would be
appropriate
for a scoping
review
on quality of life assessment tools
.
This
initial
search is then followed by an
analysis
of the text words contained in the title and
abstract of
retrieved
papers,
and
of
the index terms used
to
describe the articles. A second search
using all identified
keywords and index terms should then be
undertaken
across
all included
databases. Thirdly,
the
reference
list of
identified
reports and articles should be searched for
14
The Joanna
Briggs Institute
additional studies. This third stage may examine the reference lists of all identified studies or
examine solely the reference lists of the studies that have been selected from full-text and/or
included in the review. In any case, it should be clearly stated which group of studies will be
examined. A statement should be included of the
reviewers’
intent to contact authors of
primary studies or
reviews
for further
information,
if this is relevant. Finally, a full search
strategy for at least one database should be included as an appendix to the protocol.
Reviewers’
Manual
Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
15
Reviewers should include
the
languages
that
will
be
considered
for
inclusion
in the
review
as well
as the
timeframe,
with an
appropriate
and
clear justification
for choices.
As the
review
question might be broad, authors may find that it is appropriate to search for all
sources of
evidence
(e.g. primary studies and text/opinion
articles) simultaneously
with the one
search
strategy. This
also depends on the
relevance
of the
evidence
sources to the topic under
review
and its
objectives.
This approach will lead to a greater
sensitivity
in the search, which is
desirable
for scoping reviews.
The search for a scoping
review
may be quite
iterative
as
reviewers
become more
familiar
with
the
evidence
base, additional keywords and sources, and
potentially
useful search terms may
be discovered and incorporated into the search strategy. The input of a research
librarian
or
information scientist
can be
invaluable
in
designing
and
refining
the search.
2.6 Extraction of the
results
In scoping reviews,
the data
extraction process
may be
referred
to as “
charting
the
results”. This
process provides the reader with a logical and descriptive summary of the results that aligns
with the
objective/s
and question/s of the scoping review.
A draft charting table or form should be developed at the protocol stage to record the key
information of the source, such as author, reference, and results or findings relevant to the
review question/s. This
may be
further refined
at the
review stage
and the
charting table
updated
accordingly.
Some key
information
that
reviewers
might choose to chart are:
a. Author(s)
b.
Year
of publication
c.
Origin/country
of
origin (where
the study was
published
or conducted)
d. Aims/purpose
e. Study
population
and
sample size (if
applicable)
f. Methodology / methods
g.
Intervention
type, comparator and details of these (e.g. duration of the
intervention) (if
applicable)
h.
Duration
of the
intervention (if
applicable)
i. Outcomes and
details
of these
(e.g.
how
measures) (if
applicable)
j. Key
findings
that
relate
to the scoping
review
question/s.
A template data extraction instrument for study details, characteristics and results extraction is
provided in Appendix 1 of this chapter which can be adapted by reviewers to use in their own
scoping review protocols and reviews with citation to the JBI methodology guidance for scoping
reviews.
For ease
of
reference
and tracking, it is
suggested
that
reviewers
keep
careful
records to identity
each source. As
reviewers
chart each study, it may become
apparent
that
additional
unforeseen
data can be
usefully
charted.
Charting
the
results
can
therefore
be an
iterative
process whereby
the charting table is
continually
updated. It is suggested that the review team become familiar
with the source
results
and
trial
the
extraction
form on two or three studies to
ensure all
relevant
results are extracted. This approach is favored by other experts on the conduct of scoping
16
The Joanna
Briggs Institute
reviews (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005; Armstrong et al. 2011; Valaitis et al. 2012).
Reviewers’
Manual
Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
15
2.7 Presentation of the results
At the time of protocol
development,
the
reviewers should provide some plan
for the presentation
of results – for example, a draft chart or table. This would be expected to be further refined
toward the end of the
review
when the
reviewers have
the
greatest awareness
of the contents of
their
included
studies.
The results of a scoping review may be presented as a map of the data extracted from the
included papers in a diagrammatic or tabular form, and/or in a descriptive format that aligns
with the objective/s and scope of the
review. The elements
of the PCC
inclusion criteria
may be
useful
to guide how the data should be mapped most
appropriately.
In the scoping review
example, because the objective was to map the types and details of quality of life
assessment tools used in relation to pediatric tonsillectomy
,
the data may be
usefully
mapped
by a tabular
presentation
of how the different tools
reported in each included paper contain
the same or different measurement domains, number of items, and differences in
terms of the results of validity, reliability, and/or responsiveness to change testing.
The tables and charts may also show results as: distribution of studies by year or period of
publication (depends on each case), countries of origin, area of intervention (clinical, policy,
educational,
etc.) and
research
methods. A
narrative summary
should
accompany
the tabulated
and/or charted results and should describe how the results relate to the review objective/s
and question/s.
The results can also be classified under main conceptual categories, such as: “intervention
type”, “study population” (and sample size, if it is the case), “duration of
intervention”,
“aims”,
“methodology adopted”, “key findings”
(evidence established),
and “gaps in the research”. For
each
category
reported, a
clear explanation
should be provided.
16
The Joanna
Briggs Institute
3: The scoping review and summary of the evidence
This
section provides further guidance on the components that should comprise the
final
report
of a scoping
review
and the
information
that each component should contain. It
illustrates
how
each
component of the
review is
to be
managed in
the
scoping reviews analytical module
of JBI’s
System for the
Unified
Management,
Assessment
and Review of Information
(SUMARI)
software. This section also provides a brief
outline
of how the scoping
review
should be
formatted and the
stylistic conventions
that should be followed to ensure the review meets
the criteria for publication in the JBI Database of
Systematic Reviews
and
Implementation
Reports
.
For further
information please
refer to the Author
Guidelines
of the journal:
http://journals.lww.com/jbisrir/Pages/informationforauthors.aspx
Specifically,
guidance is
provided on the following components: outline of the report, inclusion criteria
(i.e. PCC),
search strategy, extraction, presenting and
summarizing
the results, and any
potential
implications for research and practice. All scoping reviews published in the
JBI Database of
Systematic Reviews
and
Implementation
Reports
must be based on a peer
reviewed,
scoping
review
protocol that has been accepted for publication in the
same journal.
For a traditional
systematic review, while deviations from a published review protocol are rare, due to the
more
iterative
nature of a scoping
review,
some changes may be
necessary. These
must
still
be
clearly detailed
and
justified
in the methods
section
of the scoping
review
report if and when they
occur.
3.1 Title of the scoping review
The
title should be
clear, explicit
and
reflect
the core
elements
of the
review. Titles
should not be
phrased as questions or
conclusions
and there should be
congruence
between the title, review
objective/question/s,
and
inclusion criteria.
The title should include the phrase: “….: a scoping
review“.
The
title should not be more than 12-14 words for
ease
of
understanding (see
example
above in Section 2).
3.2 Review authors
Affiliations
for each author need to be stated,
including
the JBI
affiliation
of each
reviewer (if
relevant).
A valid
email
address must be provided as contact
details
for the
corresponding
author.
3.3 Executive summary
This section is a structured abstract of the main features of the scoping review. It should be
no longer than 500 words and should contain no
abbreviations
or
references.
The executive
summary
must
accurately reflect
and
summarize
the
review
for the
reader, in particular
the results
of the
review. The executive summary includes
the
following required
headings:
3.3.1
Background
This section briefly describes the issue under review. While avoiding self-plagiarism, much
of the detail in the background section of the scoping
review
report may be adapted from the
background of the protocol.
Reviewers’
Manual
Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
17
3.3.2
Objective/s
and Question/s
The review objective/s and question/s
should be stated in
full,
as described in the
protocol section.
3.3.3 Inclusion
criteria
Types
of participants
Important characteristics
of
participants should
be
detailed, including age and other
qualifying
criteria that make them appropriate for the
objectives
of the scoping
review
and match the
review
question.
Concept
The
core concept
examined
by the scoping
review
should be
clearly articulated
to guide the
scope and breadth of the
inquiry
should be explained.
Context
The
context should be
clearly defined
and explained.
Types of
sources
The source of information can include any existing literature e.g. primary research studies,
systematic reviews, meta-analyses, letters, guidelines,
etc. should be explained.
3.3.4 Search
Strategy
Details
of the approach to
searching
as well as the sources searched should be detailed. Any
limits
on the
search
such as dates or
languages
should also be included.
3.3.5 Extraction of
results
The
methods/tools used to extract
results
from the
included sources should
be
described
in brief
(see
Appendix 11.1 for an
example).
3.3.6 Presentation of
results
Details
of
results should
be
described
in
brief
as
well
as how they
have been organized
in relation
to the
objective
and question/s of the scoping
review.
This should be the principle focus of the
Executive
Summary. Important details of the results, including the number of studies located
and included. The results extracted from the
literature
should be
clearly
detailed as well as an
explanation
of how the data has been charted.
3.3.7
Conclusions
Brief
overall conclusions
based on the scoping
review results
should be articulated,
including
a
clear answer
to the
question/s
of the scoping review and how the objective was/was not met.
Implications for research
Succinctly detail the key
implications
for
research
and further need for primary
research
and or
systematic reviews
in the field.
Implications for
practice
Succinctly detail the key results that can be used to inform practice. There may be significant
limitations
on the kinds of
implications
for practice able to be developed from the results of a
18
The Joanna
Briggs Institute
scoping review as
no
methodological appraisal
of the
quality
of
included studies takes place.
This
section may be left out if no
implications
for practice are made.
Reviewers’
Manual
Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
19
3.4 Main body of the
scoping review
The main body of the scoping review report follows much the same structure as the protocol;
there is a section for the background, objective/s and question/s, the inclusion criteria,
methods, and then the presentation of the results of the scoping review, discussion of the
results and conclusions. The following sections deal with each in detail.
3.4.1
Background
The background section should be
comprehensive
and cover all of the main elements of the
topic under
review,
as well as
appropriate information
important to the
review
and why the topic
or
question
of
interest lends itself
to a
scoping review. The primary objective
of the
scoping
review
should
be
evident
in the background as the background
situates
the
justification
and importance
of the
question/s
posed.
While
many of these details will
already
have been addressed in the
“Background” section of the protocol,
reviewers
may often find that the background provided
with the protocol needs modification or extension following the conduct of the scoping review
itself. The background section should conclude with a statement that a
preliminary
search for
previous
scoping
reviews (and ideally, systematic reviews)
on the topic
aligning
to the same
concept was conducted (state the sources searched e.g. JBI Database of
Systematic
Reviews
and
Implementation
Reports, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,
Campbell
Collection,
etc.).
The
background section must
include
a citation of the
original
protocol and the
following sentence: “The objectives, inclusion criteria
and methods of
analysis
for this
review
were
specified
in
advance
and documented in a protocol.” (citation)
For publication in the JBI Database of
Systematic Reviews
and
Implementation
Reports ,
Vancouver style referencing must be used throughout the review with superscript numbers
without brackets used for in-text citations.
3.4.2
Objective/s and Question/s
The primary objective/s of the scoping review should be stated. It can be followed by
specific objectives that relate to differing conceptual foci contained in the scoping review,
such as, participant groups,
interventions
or outcome
measures
or a more in depth
understanding
of a
particular phenomenon
of
interest
or concept.
(See example
above in
Section 2.)
The question/s posed by the scoping review should also be included in this section.
3.4.3 Inclusion
criteria
This section of the scoping review specifies the basis upon which sources were considered
for inclusion in the scoping review. This section should necessarily be as transparent and
unambiguous as possible. The
inclusion
criteria for a scoping review will be contingent on the
question/s
asked.
The
PCC should be
stipulated (Population,
Concept, and Context).
Types
of participants
The types of participants in the papers specified sought for inclusion should be related to
the
objectives
of the scoping
review.
The
reasons
for the
inclusion
or
exclusion
of particular
participants detailed
in this section should be
explained clearly
in the background section of
the scoping
review
report.
Concept
20
The Joanna
Briggs Institute
The
core concept
examined
by the scoping
review
should be
clearly articulated
to guide the
scope and breadth of the
inquiry.
This may include
details
that pertain to the “interventions”
and/or “phenomena of interest” that would be explained in greater detail in a systematic
review.
Outcomes may also be a component of a scoping review’s “Concept”. If outcomes of
interest are to be
explained,
they should be linked closely to the
objective
and the purpose
for
undertaking
the scoping review.
Reviewers’
Manual
Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
19
Context
Context will
vary depending
on the
objective/s and question/s
of the
review. The
context
should be clearly defined and may include, but is not limited to, consideration of cultural
factors, such as
geographic location
and/or
specific racial
or
gender-based interests.
In
some cases, context may also encompass
details
about the specific setting
(such
as acute
care, primary
health
care or the community).
Types of
sources
The sources of information for the scoping review should be explained. Sources can include
any
existing literature,
e.g.
primary research
studies,
systematic reviews, meta-analyses,
letters,
guidelines,
etc. The source of
information
may be left “open” to allow for the inclusion of any,
and all sources and
rationale
for this should be provided.
Otherwise,
any limits imposed on the
types of
sources should
be
detailed
and
explained. For example,
some
sources
such as text and
opinion papers and letters would not be
particularly
appropriate or useful in order to meet the
objectives
of
particular
scoping reviews.
3.4.4 Search
strategy
This section
documents how the
reviewers search
for
relevant sources
of
information
for inclusion
in the scoping
review.
The search strategy must be
comprehensively
reported and the detailed
search strategy for a minimum of three major bibliographic citation databases that have been
searched should be appended to the review.
Ideally
the
individual
search strategies for every
database searched
should be
presented
in
sequence
and in a
consistent
format in an appendix.
Clear
documentation of the search strategy is a vital component of the scientific
validity
of any
scoping
review.
A scoping
review
should ideally consider papers
(primary
studies, textual
papers and
reviews)
both published and unpublished
(grey literature).
The timeframe (start and
end dates)
chosen
for the
search should
be
clearly justified and any language restrictions
specified (e.g.
“only studies published in
English
were considered for
inclusion”).
Any hand
searching of particular
relevant journals
should be
detailed
with the
journal names
and
years
examined.
Author contact, for
example,
to request access to known but
unavailable articles
should also be included along with the outcomes of that contact.
3.4.5 Extraction of results
Extraction
of
results
for a scoping
review
should include extraction of all data
relevant
to inform
the scoping
review objective/s
and question/s.
Charting
table or forms may be used
(see
Appendix 11.1
for a template tool).
A
descriptive summary
of the
main results organized based
on
the theoretical concept
underpinning
the
review
must be included.
Examples
of extraction
fields are identified below.
Author/year
Citation details should be consistent throughout the document. The citation details include the
name of the first author
(Vancouver referencing style)
and
year
of publication.
Objective/s
A
clear
description of the
objective
of the paper should be stated.
Reviewers’
Manual
Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
21
Participants
(characteristics/total number)
The defining characteristics of the participants in included sources should be provided. This
includes demographic details
and total numbers.
Concept
Data from included studies in relation to the concept should be extracted and mapped. The
concept examined by the scoping review will vary depending on the review, and should be
clearly articulated to guide the scope and breadth of the inquiry. This may include details
that pertain to the “interventions” and/or “phenomena of interest” that would be explained in
greater detail
in a
systematic review.
Outcomes may also be a component of a scoping review’s
“Concept”. If outcomes of interest are to be explained, they should be linked closely to the
objective
and the purpose for
undertaking
the scoping review.
Context
Details
of the context, such as
location
of care
(acute, primary health care, community,
long term
care, etc.) or a
particular geographical
location, should be described.
Cultural, racial
or gender
factors may be relevant.
3.6 Presenting the results
Results
The presentation
of
results section should identify
how
many studies were identified and
selected.
There should be a narrative description of the search decision process accompanied by the
search
decision
flowchart
(see Figure 11.
1). This flowchart has been adapted from the
PRISMA flowchart developed by Moher et al. (2009), but will be likely to be replaced with a
purpose designed flowchart when the PRISMA-ScR is released. The flow chart should
clearly
detail the
review
decision process,
indicating
the
results
from the
search, removal
of
duplicate
citations,
study
selection,
full
retrieval
and
additions
from a third
search,
and
final summary
presentation.
The
narrative summary
should
logically
describe the aims or purposes of the
reviewed
sources,
concepts adopted and
results
that
relate
to the
review
question/s.
The results may be classified under main conceptual categories such as: “intervention type”,
“study population” (and sample size, if it is the case), “duration of intervention”, “aims”,
“methodology adopted”, “key findings”
(evidence established)
and “gaps in the research”. For
each
category,
a
clear explanation
should be provided.
This section should include an overall description of the included sources with reference to
the detailed Table of Included Study
Characteristics
in the appendices
(the template data
extraction tool in Appendix 1 can be readily modified by reviewers to suit this purpose)
.
The aim of
this section is to provide detail to support the inclusion of each source
(paper,
study, report,
etc.) in the scoping
review.
For each source, identify the
relevance
to the scoping review
objective and evidence for the review question. Specific results from sources may be
highlighted.
A
summary table
of
included studies should
be
provided
in the appendices of the
scoping review.
Presentation
of the
results
may map out the
reviewed material
in logical, diagrammatic or
tabular form, and/or in a
descriptive
format that aligns with the objective and scope of the
review. The tables and charts may show
results
as:
distribution
of studies by year or period of
publication (depends
on each
case), countries
of
origin, area
of
intervention
(clinical, policy,
22
The Joanna
Briggs Institute
educational,
etc.), and
research
methods.
Figure 11.1: Flow Diagram for the scoping review
pr
ocess
adapted from the PRISMA statement by Moher and colleagues
(2009).
Reviewers’
Manual
Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
23
3.7
Discussion, Conclusion,
and Implications for research and practice
3.7.1
Discussion
This section should discuss the results of the review as well as any
limitations
of the sources
included in the scoping
review. Results
should be discussed in the context of current literature,
practice and policy. Scoping
reviews are
subject to the
limitations
of
any review, relevant
sources
of
information may
be omitted and the
review
is
dependent
on
information
on the
review
question
being
available.
In a scoping
review
no
rating
of the
quality of evidence
is provided, therefore
recommendations
for practice cannot be graded.
3.7.2
Conclusions
This section should begin
with
an overall conclusion based
on the
results. The conclusions
drawn
should match the
review
objective/s and question/s.
3.7.3 Implications for research
This section should include clear, specific
recommendations
for future
research
based on gaps
in knowledge
identified
from the
results
of the
review.
Authors may be able to make comments
about the future conduct of
systematic reviews
that may be appropriate, or primary
research
in
the
area
of interest.
3.7.4 Implications for
practice
This section should include clear results from the scoping review that can be used to inform
practice. It may not be possible to develop recommendations for practice from the results of
a scoping
review
as no
assessment
of
methodological
quality takes place as part of a scoping
review. As such this section may be left out. If implications for practice are included, the JBI
Grades
of
Recommendation
must be used (The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2014).
3.5 References
For publication in the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, all
references
should be listed in full using the
Vancouver referencing
style, in the order in which
they appear in the review. Abbreviated journal titles must be used in accordance with th e
Unite d Sta tes N ationa l Libr ary o f Medi cine (2 016).
Reviewers’
Manual
Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
23
4 Review Appendices
Appendices should be numbered using Roman numerals in the order in which they have been
referred to in the body of the text. While reviewers may choose to develop additional appendices
for details that are unfeasible to present in the main body of the report, there are two required
appendices for a JBI scoping review:
Appendix I: Search strategy
A detailed search strategy for at least one of the major databases searched must be appended.
Appendix II: Data extraction instrument
The data extraction instrument used must be appended (see the template in Appendix 11.1)
24
The Joanna
Briggs Institute
5. Chapter References
Anderson, S, Allen, P, Peckham, S & Goodwin, N 2008, ‘Asking the right questions: scoping studies in
the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services’, Health Res Policy
Syst, vol. 6, no. 7,
viewed 20 March 2017, (online PubMed Central/US National Library of Medicine,
National Institutes of Health).
Arksey,
H &
O’Malley,
L 2005, ‘Scoping studies: towards a
methodological framework’,
Int J Soc Res
Methodol, vol. 8, no. 1, pp.19-32.
Armstrong,
R,
Hall,
BJ,
Doyle,
J, &
Waters,
E 2011, ‘Scoping the scope of a
cochrane review’,
J Public
Health vol.
33, no. 1, pp. 147-50.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination n.d., ‘PROSPERO International prospective register of
systematic reviews’, CRD The University of York, York, viewed 17 March 2017,
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/about.php?about=inclusioncriteria
Crilly,
T, Jashapara, A &
Ferlie,
E 2009, ‘
Research utilisation
and knowledge
mobilisation:
a scoping
review
of the
literature’.
London:
Department
of
Management,
King’s
College
London.
Davis,
K,
Drey,
N & Gould, D 2009, ‘What are scoping
studies?
A
review
of the
nursing literature’,
Int J
Nurs Stud, vol. 46, no. 10, pp.1386-400.
Decaria,
J, Sharp, C &
Petrella,
R 2012, ‘Scoping
review
report: obesity in older adults’, Int J Obesity,
vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 1141-50.
de Chavez, AC, Backett-Milburn, K, Parry, O & Platt, S 2005, ‘Understanding and
researching wellbeing: Its usage in different disciplines and potential for health research and
health promotion’,
Health
Educ J, vol. 64, no.1, pp. 70-87.
Ehrich, K, Freeman, GK, Richards, SC, Robinson, IC, & Shepperd, S 2002, ‘How to do a
scoping
exercise: continuity
of care’,
Res
Pol
Plan,
vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 25-9.
Grant, MJ & Booth, A 2009, ‘A typology of reviews: an
analysis
of 14 review types and associated
methodologies’, Health Info
Libr J, vol.
26, no. 2, pp. 91-108.
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Levels
of
Evidence
and Grades of
Recommendation
Working Party
2014, Supporting Document for the
Joanna
Briggs
Institute Levels
of
Evidence
and Grades of
Recommendation: The Joanna
Briggs
Institute, Adelaide, viewed 20 March 2017,
Reviewers’
Manual
Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
25
http://joannabriggs.org/jbi-approach.html#tabbed-nav=Levels-of-Evidence
Kao, SS, Peters, MDJ, Dharmawardana, N, Stew, B, & Ooi, EH 2017a, ‘Pediatric tonsillectomy
quality of life assessment instruments: a scoping review’, Laryngoscope. 8 March, [Epub ahead of
print].
Kao, SS, Peters, MDJ, & Ooi, E 2017b, ‘Pediatric tonsillectomy quality of life assessment
instruments: a scoping review protocol’, JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. [In Press].
Levac, D, Colquhoun,
H &
O’Brien, KK 2010, ‘Scoping studies: advancing the methodology’,
Implement
Sci, ed. 5, vol. 1, pp. 1-9.
Moher, D,
Liberati,
A,
Tetzlaff,
J & Altman, DG 2009, ‘
Preferred
reporting items for
systematic
reviews
and
meta-analyses:
the
PRISMA
statement’, Ann
Intern
Med, vol. 151, ed. 4, pp. 264-9.
Mordiffi, SZ, Peters, MDJ & Ang, ENK 2016, ‘Non-invasive thermometers used in healthcare
facilities: A scoping review protocol’. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep’, vol. 14, ed. 11,
pp. 106-12.
Pearson,
A,
Wiechula, R,
Court, A & Lockwood, C 2005, ‘
The JBI model
of
evidence–based
healthcare’,
Int J
Evid
Based Healthc, vol. 3 ed. 8, pp. 207-15.
Pearson, A, White, H, Bath-Hextall, F, Salmond, S., Apostolo, J. and Kirkpatrick, P 2015, ‘A mixed-
methods approach to systematic reviews’, Int J
Evid
Based Healthc, vol. 13, ed. 3, pp.121-31.
Peters, MDJ, Godfrey, C, Kahlil, H, McInerney, P, Baldini Soares, C & Parker, D 2015, ‘Guidance
for conducting systematic scoping reviews’. Int J
Evid
Based Healthc, vol. 13, ed. 3, pp. 141-46.
Peters, MDJ 2016, ‘In no uncertain terms: the importance of a defined objective in scoping
reviews’, JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep, vol. 14, ed. 2, pp. 1-4.
Pham,
MT,
Rajić,
A,
Greig,
JD,
Sargeant,
JM,
Papadopoulos,
A &
McEwen,
SA 2014, ‘A scoping
review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency’. Res Synth
Methods, vol. 5, ed. 4, pp. 371-85.
Reilly, R, Evans, K, Gorham, G, Peters, MDJ, Warren, S, O’Shea, R, Brown, A, Cass, A &
Gomersall, J 2016, ‘Effectiveness, cost effectiveness, acceptability and implementation
barriers/enablers of chronic kidney disease management programs for Indigenous people in
26
The Joanna
Briggs Institute
Australia, New Zealand and Canada: a systematic review of mixed evidence’, BMC Health Serv
Research, vol. 16. 6 April, pp.119-33.
Tricco, AC, Ashoor, HM, Cardoso, R, MacDonald, H, Cogo, E, Kastner, M, Perrier, L, McKibbon, A,
Grimshaw, JM & Straus, SE 2016a, ‘Sustainability of knowledge translation interventions in
healthcare decision-making: a scoping review’ Implement Sci, ed. 11, vol. 1, p.55.
Tricco, AC, Lillie, E, Zarin, W, O’Brien, K, Colquhoun, H, Kastner, M, Levac, D, Ng, C, Pearson
Sharpe, J, Wilson, K, Kenny, M, Warren, R, Wilson, C, Stelfox, HT & Straus, SE 2016b, ‘A scoping
review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews’, BMC Med Res Methodol, vol. 16, ed. 15,
viewed 20 March 2017, (online PubMed Central/US National Library of Medicine, National
Institutes of Health).
Tricco, AC, Strauss, S & Moher, D 2015, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analysis: extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), Enhancing the QUAlity and
Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network, Centre for Statistics in Medicine,
NDORMS, University of Oxford, London, viewed 17 March 2017, http://www.equator-
network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#55
The United States National Library of Medicine (U.S. NLM). 2016. FAQ: NLM® LocatorPlus® --
Database of NLM-Held Journal Titles and Abbreviations, Rockville Pike, Bethesda, viewed 17
March 2017, https://www.nlm.nih.gov/services/lpabbrev.html
Valaitis,
R,
Martin-Misener,
R, Wong, ST, MacDonald, M, Meagher-Stewart, D, Austin, P,
Kaczorowksi, J, O-Mara, L, Savage, R, Strengthening Primary Health Care through Public Health
and Primary Care Collaboration Team 2012, ‘Methods,
strategies
and
technologies
used to conduct
a scoping
literature review
of
collaboration
between
primary
care and public health’, Prim
Health Care
Res Dev,
vol. 13, ed. 3, pp. 219-36.
Watson, R, Parr, JR, Joyce, C, May, C & Le Couteur, AS 2011, ‘Models of transitional care for
young people with complex health needs: a scoping review’, Child Care Health Dev, vol. 37, ed. 6,
pp.780-91.
Reviewers’
Manual
Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
27
4.1:Appendix 1: JBI Template study details, characteristics and
results extraction instrument
Scoping Review Details
Scoping Review title:
Review objective/s:
Review question/s:
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
Population
Concept
Context
Types of Study
Study Details and Characteristics
Study citation details
(e.g. author/s, date,
title, journal, volume,
issue, pages)
Country
Context
Participants (details
e.g. age/sex and
number)
Details/Results extracted from study (in relation to the concept
of the scoping review)
E.g. Quality of Life
Domains assessed
E.g. Number of items
in tool
E.g. details of
psychometric
validation of tool
28
The Joanna
Briggs Institute
