Table 2 Summary of scoping review methods
From: A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews
Protocol Development & Review Design (n = 494) | Count (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
A priori protocol and review design | Predefined protocol | A priori protocol | 62 (13 %) |
Not reported | 432 (87 %) | ||
Research Question | Clearly Reported & Iteratively defined | 20 (4 %) | |
Clearly Reported | 456 (92 %) | ||
Iteratively Defined | 2 (<1 %) | ||
Unclear/inferred | 16 (3 %) | ||
Eligibility Criteria | Clearly Reported & Iteratively defined | 54 (11 %) | |
Clearly Reported | 332 (67 %) | ||
Iteratively Defined | 5 (1 %) | ||
Unclear/inferred | 83 (17 %) | ||
Not reported | 20 (4 %) | ||
Eligible Study Designs | Primary only (e.g., randomized trials, cohort studies) | 113 (23 %) | |
Secondary only (e.g., systematic reviews) | 14 (3 %) | ||
Secondary & Primary | 82 (17 %) | ||
All study designs | 83 (17 %) | ||
Not specified | 202 (41 %) | ||
Identifying relevant studies | Search Strategy | Clearly Reported & Iteratively defined | 43 (9 %) |
Clearly Reported | 111 (22 %) | ||
Keywords only | 293 (59 %) | ||
Iteratively Defined | 14 (3 %) | ||
Unclear/Not reported | 33 (7 %) | ||
Databases searched | Searched >1 database | 458 (93 %) | |
Searched only 1 database | 28 (6 %) | ||
Searched a selection of journals | 3 (1 %) | ||
Used previous review(s) as starting point | 1 (0 %) | ||
Not reported | 4 (1 %) | ||
Additional search strategy | Scanned references | 278 (56 %) | |
Grey literature searched | 255 (52 %) | ||
Consulted topic experts | 184 (37 %) | ||
Consulted librarian | 135 (27 %) | ||
Manually searched select Journals | 116 (23 %) | ||
Performed updated search | 45 (9 %) | ||
Limits applied | Limited by date | 355 (72 %) | |
Limited by language | 324 (66 %) | ||
Limited by study design | 54 (11 %) | ||
Data abstraction and Quality appraisal | Standardized charting form | Used a predefined form | 212 (43 %) |
Didn’t use predefined form | 31 (6 %) | ||
Not reported | 251 (51 %) | ||
Quality appraisal | Used quality appraisal tool | 71(14 %) | |
Not done | 423 (86 %) | ||
Reporting and Implications of findings | Synthesis | Meta-analysis (i.e. statistical pooling of evidence) | 7 (1%) |
Formal qualitative analysis | 104 (21 %) | ||
Reporting | Study flow diagram | 232 (47 %) | |
Tabular format | 403 (82 %) | ||
Graphical format | 83 (17 %) | ||
Discussion | Identified evidence gaps | 420 (85 %) | |
Future research opportunity | 413 (84 %) | ||
Strengths and Limitations identified | 339 (69 %) | ||
Specific policy or practice implications | 269 (54 %) | ||
Recommended a systematic review | 59 (12 %) | ||
Knowledge Translation | Integrated and End-of-grant | 15 (3 %) | |
Integrated | 28 (6 %) | ||
End-of-grant | 46 (9 %) | ||