PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation.

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

Related collections

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Ann Intern Med

Title: Annals of internal medicine

Publisher: American College of Physicians

ISSN (Electronic): 1539-3704

ISSN (Print): 0003-4819

Publication date (Electronic): October 02 2018

Volume: 169

Issue: 7

Affiliations

[1 ] St. Michael's Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.C.T., S.E.S.).

[2 ] St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (E.L., W.Z.).

[3 ] University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (K.K.O., H.C.).

[4 ] Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts (D.L.).

[5 ] Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (D.M., C.G.).

[6 ] University of South Australia and University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia (M.D.P.).

[7 ] Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (T.H.).

[8 ] Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (L.W., T.C.).

[9 ] RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California (S.H.).

[10 ] American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon (E.A.A.).

[11 ] Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland (C.C.).

[12 ] University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (J.M.).

[13 ] University of York, York, United Kingdom (L.S.).

[14 ] University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (L.H.).

[15 ] BMJ Open, London, United Kingdom (A.A.).

[16 ] McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (M.G.W.).

[17 ] Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway, and South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa (S.L.).

[18 ] Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada (C.M.G.).

[19 ] Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (M.T.M.).

[20 ] World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (E.V.L., Ö.T.).

[21 ] Cochrane, London, United Kingdom (K.S.).

[22 ] King's College London, London, United Kingdom (J.M.).

Article

Publisher Item ID: 2700389

DOI: 10.7326/M18-0850

PubMed ID: 30178033

SO-VID: 10c8161f-ae39-465a-816b-4036a6cdfd1f

History

Data availability:

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 7,447

See all cited by

- Version 1