A scoping review aims to systematically explore and map the research available from a wide range of sources. The objective of this study was to produce a scoping review checklist to guide future scoping studies to enable rigorous review and critique of phenomena of interest. The methods used included a review of literature, expert consensus group meetings, a modified Delphi survey and, finally, verification against recent scoping study examples. Results showed that the checklist was able to identify key elements of scoping reviews. The 22-item Scoping Review Checklist (SRC), which includes two optional stakeholder consultation items, has been developed using rigorous recommended approaches. The checklist can be used to guide the conduct and critique of scoping studies.
ArkseyH.O’MalleyL. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 19-32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616
2.
BreneolS.BelliveauJ.CassidyC.CurranJ. A. (2017). Strategies to support transitions from hospital to home for children with medical complexity: A scoping review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 72, 91-104. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.04.011
ColquhounH. L.LevacD.O’BrienK. K.StrausS.TriccoA. C.PerrierL.. . . MoherD. (2014). Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 1291-1294. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013
5.
CookD.BeckmanT. J.BordageG. (2007). Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: A systematic review. Medical Education, 41, 737-745. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02777.x
6.
DaudtH. M.van MosselC.ScottS. J. (2013). Enhancing the scoping study methodology: A large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, Article 48.
7.
DeschodtM.ClaesV.Van GrootvenB.Van den HeedeK.FlamaingJ.BolandB.MilisenK. (2016). Structure and processes of interdisciplinary geriatric consultation teams in acute care hospitals: A scoping review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 55, 98-114. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.09.015
8.
ElliottN.BegleyC.SheafG.HigginsA. (2016). Barriers and enablers to advanced practitioners’ ability to enact their leadership role: A scoping review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 60, 24-45. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.03.001
9.
The Equator Network. (2016). Reporting guidelines for the main types of research. Available from http://www.equator-network.org/
10.
GrantM. J.BoothA. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26, 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
11.
GrantM. J.LinesL.DarbyshireP.ParryY. (2017). How do nurse practitioners work in primary health care settings? A scoping review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 75, 51-57. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.06.011
12.
GrayR.Al-GhareebA.DavisJ.McKennaL.HillelS. A. (2018). Inclusion of nursing trials in systematic reviews after they have been retracted: Does it happen and what should we do?International Journal of Nursing Studies, 79, 154. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.12.006
13.
HsuC.-C.SandfordB. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(10), 1-8.
14.
Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual: 2015 edition/supplement. Adelaide, South Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute, The University of Adelaide.
15.
KeeneyS.HassonF.McKennaH. (2006). Consulting the oracle: Ten lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53, 205-212.
16.
KhalilH.PetersM.GodfreyC. M.McInerneyP.SoaresC. B.ParkerD. (2016). An evidence-based approach to scoping reviews. Worldviews on Evidence-based Nursing, 13, 118-123. doi:10.1111/wvn.12144
17.
LevacD.ColquhounH.O’BrienK. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, Article 69.
18.
Martin-MisenerR.KilpatrickK.DonaldF.Bryant-LukosiusD.RaynerJ.ValaitisR.. . . LambA. (2016). Nurse practitioner caseload in primary health care: Scoping review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 62, 170-182. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.07.019
19.
MaysN.PopeC.PopayJ. (2005). Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10(suppl_1), 6-20.
20.
MaysN.RobertsE.PopayJ. (2001). Synthesising research evidence. In FulopN.AllenP.ClarkeA.BlackN. (Eds.), Studying the organization and delivery of health services: Research methods (pp. 188-220). London, England: Routledge.
21.
MieronkoskiR.AzimiI.RahmaniA. M.AantaaR.TeräväV.LiljebergP.SalanteräS. (2017). The internet of things for basic nursing care—A scoping review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 69, 78-90. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.01.009
22.
MoherD.AltmanD.SchulzK.SimeraI.WagerE. (Eds.). (2014). Guidelines for reporting health research: A user’s manual. London, England: John Wiley.
23.
MoherD.SchulzK. F.SimeraI.AltmanD. G. (2010). Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Medicine, 7(2), e1000217. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217
24.
O’BrienK. K.ColquhounH.LevacD.BaxterL.TriccoA. C.StrausS.. . . O’MalleyL. (2016). Advancing scoping study methodology: A web-based survey and consultation of perceptions on terminology, definition and methodological steps. BMC Health Services Research, 16(1), Article 305.
25.
PetersM. D. J.GodfreyC. M.KhalilH.McInerneyP.ParkerD.SoaresC. B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13, 141-146. doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000050
26.
PhamM.RajićA.GreigJ. D.SargeantJ. M.PapadopoulosA.McEwenS. A. (2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 371-385.
27.
ShoreyS.AndréB.LopezV. (2017). The experiences and needs of healthcare professionals facing perinatal death: A scoping review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 68, 25-39. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.12.007
28.
ThomasA.LubarskyS.DurningS. J.YoungM. E. (2017). Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Demystifying scoping reviews. Academic Medicine, 92, 161-166. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001452
29.
TriccoA.LillieE.ZarinW.O’BrienK.ColquhounH.KastnerM.. . . KennyM. A. (2016). A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16, Article 15.
30.
TriccoA. C.TetzlaffJ.MoherD. (2011). The art and science of knowledge synthesis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64, 11-20. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.007
31.
WendscheJ.GhadiriA.BengschA.WeggeJ. (2017). Antecedents and outcomes of nurses’ rest break organization: A scoping review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 75, 65-80. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.07.005
32.
WhittemoreR.ChaoA.JangM.MingesK. E.ParkC. (2014). Methods for knowledge synthesis: An overview. Heart & Lung, 43, 453-461.
33.
ZhongY.McKennaL.CopnellB. (2017). What are Chinese nurses’ experiences whilst working overseas? A narrative scoping review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 74, 101-111. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.06.009
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
