Skip to main content

Advertisement

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 %)