Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26052958›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2014

A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency.

Mai T Pham, Andrijana Rajić, Judy D Greig, Jan M Sargeant, Andrew Papadopoulos, Scott A McEwen

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 942 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
942citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

942 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Guideline
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Article
  16. Interventions currently implemented among orphans in South-Africa: a scoping review.SAHARA J : journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS Research Alliance · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Relational Therapy in Post-Incarceration Reentry: A Scoping Review.Journal of marital and family therapy · 2026
    Article

882 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mai T PhamDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0213-4278
Andrijana RajićDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Judy D GreigDivision of Public Health Risk Sciences, Laboratory for Foodborne Zoonoses, Public Health Agency of Canada, 160 Research Lane, Suite 206, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 5B2, Canada.
Jan M SargeantDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Andrew PapadopoulosDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Scott A McEwenDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe scoping review has become an increasingly popular approach for synthesizing research evidence. It is a relatively new approach for which a universal study definition or definitive procedure has not been established. The purpose of this scoping review was to provide an overview of scoping reviews in the literature.

methodsA scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A search was conducted in four bibliographic databases and the gray literature to identify scoping review studies. Review selection and characterization were performed by two independent reviewers using pretested forms.

resultsThe search identified 344 scoping reviews published from 1999 to October 2012. The reviews varied in terms of purpose, methodology, and detail of reporting. Nearly three-quarter of reviews (74.1%) addressed a health topic. Study completion times varied from 2 weeks to 20 months, and 51% utilized a published methodological framework. Quality assessment of included studies was infrequently performed (22.38%).

conclusionsScoping reviews are a relatively new but increasingly common approach for mapping broad topics. Because of variability in their conduct, there is a need for their methodological standardization to ensure the utility and strength of evidence.

Indexed as

Research ReportTerminology as TopicBibliometricsDatabases, BibliographicPublishingQuality ControlScoping Reviews as TopicWritingknowledge synthesisliterature reviewmethodologyscoping review

Identifiers

PMID26052958
PMCPMC4491356

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.