Practical Guidance for Knowledge Synthesis: Scoping Review Methods

被引:228
作者
Lockwood, Craig [1 ]
dos Santos, Kelli Borgess [2 ,3 ]
Pap, Robin [4 ]
机构
[1] Joanna Briggs Inst, Implementat Sci, Level 3-55 King William Rd, North Adelaide 5006, Australia
[2] Univ Fed Juiz de Fora, Sch Nursing, Juiz De Fora, Brazil
[3] Brazilian Ctr Evidence Based Healthcare, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
[4] Western Sydney Univ, Sch Sci & Hlth, Sydney, NSW, Australia
关键词
evidence-based practice; methods; publishing/standards; review literature as topic;
D O I
10.1016/j.anr.2019.11.002
中图分类号
R47 [护理学];
学科分类号
1011 ;
摘要
Scoping reviews are a useful approach to synthesizing research evidence although the objectives and methods are different to that of systematic reviews, yet some confusion persists around how to plan and prepare so that a completed scoping review complies with best practice in methods and meets international standards for reporting criteria. This paper describes how to use available guidance to ensure a scoping review project meets global standards, has transparency of methods and promotes readability though the use of innovative approaches to data analysis and presentation. We address some of the common issues such as which projects are more suited to systematic reviews, how to avoid an inadequate search and/or poorly reported search strategy, poorly described methods and lack of transparency, and the issue of how to plan and present results that are clear, visually compelling and accessible to readers. Effective pre-planning, adhering to protocol and detailed consideration of how the results data will be communicated to the readership are critical. The aim of this article is to provide clarity about what is meant by conceptual clarity and how pre-planning enables review authors to produce scoping reviews which are of high quality, reliability and readily publishable. (C) 2019 Korean Society of Nursing Science. Published by Elsevier BV.
引用
收藏
页码:287 / 294
页数:8
相关论文
共 13 条
  • [1] Adams Julie Lynn, 2019, JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep, V17, P1573, DOI 10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003876
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2017, JOANNA BRIGGS I REVI
  • [3] Arksey H., 2005, INT J SOC RES METHOD, V8, P19, DOI [10.1080/1364557032000119616, DOI 10.1080/1364557032000119616, DOI 10.1080/1364-557032000119616]
  • [4] de Goumoens Veronique, 2018, JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep, V16, P2330, DOI 10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003846
  • [5] Hakonsen Sasja Jul, 2018, JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep, V16, P117, DOI 10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003386
  • [6] Kynoch Kate, 2019, JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep, V17, P1130, DOI 10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003914
  • [7] What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences
    Munn, Zachary
    Stern, Cindy
    Aromataris, Edoardo
    Lockwood, Craig
    Jordan, Zoe
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2018, 18
  • [8] MZ AE, 2017, JOANN BRIGGS I REV M
  • [9] Oyeflaten Irene, 2019, JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep, V17, P1026, DOI 10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003953
  • [10] Pap Robin, 2017, JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep, V15, P1537, DOI 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-003141