A Scoping Review on the Conduct and Reporting of Scoping Reviews

Overview

Journal BMC Med Res Methodol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties General Medicine
Health Services

Date 2016 Feb 10

PMID 26857112

Citations 562

Authors

Andrea C Tricco

Erin Lillie

Wasifa Zarin

Kelly OBrien

Heather Colquhoun

Monika Kastner

Danielle Levac

Carmen Ng

Jane Pearson Sharpe

Katherine Wilson

Meghan Kenny

Rachel Warren

Charlotte Wilson

Henry T Stelfox

Sharon E Straus

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Scoping reviews are used to identify knowledge gaps, set research agendas, and identify implications for decision-making. The conduct and reporting of scoping reviews is inconsistent in the literature. We conducted a scoping review to identify: papers that utilized and/or described scoping review methods; guidelines for reporting scoping reviews; and studies that assessed the quality of reporting of scoping reviews.

Methods: We searched nine electronic databases for published and unpublished literature scoping review papers, scoping review methodology, and reporting guidance for scoping reviews. Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion. Data abstraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative (e.g. frequencies of methods) and qualitative (i.e. content analysis of the methods) syntheses were conducted.

Results: After searching 1525 citations and 874 full-text papers, 516 articles were included, of which 494 were scoping reviews. The 494 scoping reviews were disseminated between 1999 and 2014, with 45% published after 2012. Most of the scoping reviews were conducted in North America (53%) or Europe (38%), and reported a public source of funding (64%). The number of studies included in the scoping reviews ranged from 1 to 2600 (mean of 118). Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology guidance for scoping reviews, only 13% of the scoping reviews reported the use of a protocol, 36% used two reviewers for selecting citations for inclusion, 29% used two reviewers for full-text screening, 30% used two reviewers for data charting, and 43% used a pre-defined charting form. In most cases, the results of the scoping review were used to identify evidence gaps (85%), provide recommendations for future research (84%), or identify strengths and limitations (69%). We did not identify any guidelines for reporting scoping reviews or studies that assessed the quality of scoping review reporting.

Conclusion: The number of scoping reviews conducted per year has steadily increased since 2012. Scoping reviews are used to inform research agendas and identify implications for policy or practice. As such, improvements in reporting and conduct are imperative. Further research on scoping review methodology is warranted, and in particular, there is need for a guideline to standardize reporting.

Citing Articles

Implementation of the Community Component of the Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP): A Scoping Review.

Agudelo-Hernandez F, Giraldo-Alvarez A Public Health Rev. 2025; 46:1607759.

PMID: 40071153 PMC: 11893325. DOI: 10.3389/phrs.2025.1607759.

Addressing health equity during design and implementation of health system reform initiatives: a scoping review and framework.

Bouckley T, Peiris D, Nambiar D, Mishra S, Sood T, Purwar P Int J Equity Health. 2025; 24(1):68.

PMID: 40069696 PMC: 11899096. DOI: 10.1186/s12939-025-02436-z.

Equitable access to digital higher education for students with disabilities in South Africa.

Zongozzi J, Ngubane S Afr J Disabil. 2025; 14:1525.

PMID: 40060974 PMC: 11886551. DOI: 10.4102/ajod.v14i0.1525.

Features of Structured, One-to-One Videoconference Interventions That Actively Engage People in the Management of Their Chronic Conditions: Scoping Review.

Chen Y, Lehman M, Van Denend T, Kish J, Wu Y, Preissner K J Med Internet Res. 2025; 27:e58543.

PMID: 40009439 PMC: 11904366. DOI: 10.2196/58543.

Wound management, healing, and early prosthetic rehabilitation: Part 1 - A scoping review of healing and non-healing definitions.

Williams-Reid H, Johannesson A, Buis A Can Prosthet Orthot J. 2025; 7(2):43715.

PMID: 39990241 PMC: 11844765. DOI: 10.33137/cpoj.v7i2.43715.

References

Peters M, Godfrey C, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares C . Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015; 13(3):141-6. DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050. View

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009; 339:b2535. PMC: 2714657. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2535. View

Levac D, Colquhoun H, OBrien K . Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010; 5:69. PMC: 2954944. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69. View

Thomson L, Fayed N, Sedarous F, Ronen G . Life quality and health in adolescents and emerging adults with epilepsy during the years of transition: a scoping review. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013; 56(5):421-33. DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.12335. View

Anderson S, Allen P, Peckham S, Goodwin N . Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Res Policy Syst. 2008; 6:7. PMC: 2500008. DOI: 10.1186/1478-4505-6-7. View

Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P . All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Syst Rev. 2015; 4:183. PMC: 4688988. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-015-0163-7. View

Moher D, Weeks L, Ocampo M, Seely D, Sampson M, Altman D . Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(7):718-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.013. View

Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco A, Sampson M, Altman D . Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007; 4(3):e78. PMC: 1831728. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078. View

Schulz K, Chalmers I, Hayes R, Altman D . Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995; 273(5):408-12. DOI: 10.1001/jama.273.5.408. View

10.

Moher D, Schulz K, Simera I, Altman D . Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010; 7(2):e1000217. PMC: 2821895. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217. View

11.

Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham I . Knowledge translation is the use of knowledge in health care decision making. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 64(1):6-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.016. View

12.

Thulien N . Innovative approaches to cervical cancer screening for sex trade workers: an international scoping review. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2014; 36(3):231-239. DOI: 10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30631-9. View

13.

Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz K, Altman D . Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med. 2010; 8:24. PMC: 2874506. DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-24. View

14.

Colquhoun H, Levac D, OBrien K, Straus S, Tricco A, Perrier L . Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(12):1291-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013. View

15.

Pham M, Rajic A, Greig J, Sargeant J, Papadopoulos A, McEwen S . A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2015; 5(4):371-85. PMC: 4491356. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1123. View

16.

Dwan K, Altman D, Arnaiz J, Bloom J, Chan A, Cronin E . Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One. 2008; 3(8):e3081. PMC: 2518111. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003081. View

17.

Kastner M, Tricco A, Soobiah C, Lillie E, Perrier L, Horsley T . What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12:114. PMC: 3477082. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-114. View

18.

Daudt H, van Mossel C, Scott S . Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team's experience with Arksey and O'Malley's framework. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13:48. PMC: 3614526. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-48. View

19.

Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, Grimshaw J, Moher D, Lefebvre C . An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(9):944-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.012. View

20.

Tricco A, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J . A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015; 13:224. PMC: 4574114. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6. View