Scoping Reviews as a methodology for scientific knowledge synthesis
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: Currently, health systems around the world are betting on making clinical decisions based on scientific evidence. For this, it is essential that healthcare providers consult the results of scientific research. However, given the large amount of literature, researchers have developed knowledge synthesis methodologies to compile scientific studies within a specific area. Although there are more than 10 types of methodologies for reviewing the literature, Scoping Reviews have received little attention in the literature on Spanish-speaking scientific research methods.
Objective: Detail the Scoping Review methodology, its purposes and the phases for its development.
Development: This paper details the generalities of Scoping Reviews based on the methodology proposed by Arksey & O'Malley (2005). It also describes the areas where this type of review can be employed, the phases to develop the review and examples.
Conclusions: Scoping Reviews have the strength to inform healthcare providers and policy on a specific topic of interest. Like Systematic Reviews, Scoping Reviews uses a clear and replicable methodology, providing reliable and scientific data for healthcare providers, policy makers and researchers.
Publication Facts
Reviewer profiles N/A
Author statements
- Editor & editorial board
- profiles
- Academic society
- N/A
- Publisher
- Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
To learn about these publication facts, click 
PF is maintained by the Public Knowledge Project
Article Details
Dimensions citation
MÉTRICAS
References
2. Wachtel RE, Dexter F. Difficulties and challenges associated with literature searches in operating room management, complete with recommendations. Anesth Analg. 2013; 117(6): 1460-79. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182a6d33b
3. Wallace J, Nwosu B, Clarke M. Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions. BMJ Open. 2012; 2(5): e001220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001220
4. Clarke J. What is a systematic review? Evid Based Nurs. 2011. 14(3): 64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ebn.2011.0049
5. Higgings JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. http://bit.ly/2S2zCru
6. Schick-Makaroff K, MacDonald M, Plummer M, Burgess J, Neander W. What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis. AIMS Public Health. 2016; 3(1): 172-215. https://doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.172
7. Paré G, Trudel MC, Jaana M, Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Inform Manage-Amster. 2015; 52(2): 183-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008
8. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Baldini-Soares C, Khalil H, Parker D. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews. En: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017. https://bit.ly/2txKdkO
9. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009; 26(2): 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
10. Arksey H, O´Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
11. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010; 5 (Article number 69): 9 screens. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
12. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7): 467-73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
13. Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012; 22(10): 1435-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938
14. Cochrane Library. About Covidence. Community.cochrane.org. United Kingdom: Cochrane comunnity; 2020. https://bit.ly/2OvQQLO
15. Salami B, Meharali S, Salami A. The health of temporary foreign workers in Canada. Can J Public Health. 2015; 106(8): 546-54. https://doi.org/10.17269/cjph.106.5182
16. O’Rourke HM, Sidani S, Chu CH, Fox M, McGilton KS, Collins J. Pilot of a tailored danceiIntervention to support function in people with cognitive impairment residing in long-term care: A brief report. Gero and Geriatric Med. 2017; 3: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333721417734672
17. Jang M, Johnson CM, D’Eramo-Melkus G, Vorderstrasse AA. Participation of racial and ethnic minorities in technology-based interventions to self-manage type 2 diabetes: A scoping review. J Transcult Nurs. 2018; 29(3):292-307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659617723074
18. Fernández-Sánchez H, Enríquez- Hernández CB, Sidani S, Hernández-Osorio C, Castellanos-Contreras E, Salazar-Mendoza J. Dance intervention for Mexican family caregivers of children with developmental disability: A pilot study. J Transcult Nurs. 2019; 31(1): 38-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659619838027
19. O'Rourke HM, Collins L, Sidani S. Interventions to address social connectedness and loneliness for older adults: a scoping review. BMC geriatr. 2018; 18(1): 214. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0897-x
20. Reid JC, Unger J, McCaskell D, Childerhose L, Zorko DJ, Kho ME. Physical rehabilitation interventions in the intensive care unit: a scoping review of 117 studies. J intensive care. 2018; 6(1):80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-018-0349-x
21. McArthur C, Gibbs JC, Patel R, Papaioannou A, Neves P, Killingbeck J, et al. A scoping review of physical rehabilitation in long-term care: Interventions, outcomes, tools. Ca J Aging. 2017; 36(4):435-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S071498081700040X
22. Bussiek P-BV, De Poli C, Bevan G. A scoping review protocol to map the evidence on interventions to prevent overweight and obesity in children. BMJ Open 2018; 8(2): e019311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019311
23. Gardner K, Kearns R, Woodland L, Silveira M, Hua M, Katz M, et al. A scoping review of the evidence on health promotion interventions for reducing waterpipe smoking: implications for practice. Front Public Health. 2018; 6: article 308. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00308
24. Verbeek J, Ruotsalainen J, Laitinen J, Korkiakangas E, Lusa S, Mänttäri S, et al. Interventions to enhance recovery in healthy workers; a scoping review. Occup Med. 2019; 69(1):54-63. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqy141
25. Hammond DA, Gurnani PK, Flannery AH, Smetana KS, Westrick JC, Lat I, et al. Scoping review of interventions associated with cost avoidance able to be performed in the intensive care unit and emergency department. Pharmacotherapy. 2019; 39(3):215-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.2224
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Enfermería Universitaria by Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México it is distributed under the License Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Accepted and published articles become open-access under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, which authorizes the reproduction and sharing without commercial purposes, provided the corresponding acknowledgments to their authors. Authors are allowed to manage a self-archive copy of the article’s published version so that they can open-access it in their personal or institutional web pages, and/or any other broad-diffusion space.
