+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

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

      Read this article at

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.

          In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

              Background Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process. Discussion We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one); balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process (stage two); using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data (stage four); incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research (stage five); and incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology (stage six). Lastly, we propose additional considerations for scoping study methodology in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research. Summary Specific recommendations to clarify and enhance this methodology are outlined for each stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice.

                Author and article information

                Annals of Internal Medicine
                Ann Intern Med
                American College of Physicians
                September 04 2018
                [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.)
                © 2018


                Comment on this article