ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020
Advancing methodology for scoping reviews: recommendations arising from a scoping literature review (SLR) to inform transformation of Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Digital capability as a multilevel construct: a systematic literature review of its dimensions, antecedents, and consequences.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- Workforce agility: a systematic literature review and research agenda.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluating policy guidelines for the prevention and management of anaemia in pregnancy in Africa: a systematic scoping review of practices and recommendations.Tropical medicine and health · 2026Article
- Examination of Relationships Between 24-Hour Movement Behaviors and Mental Health Outcomes in Frontline Workers: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Conducting evidence synthesis and developing evidence-based advice in public health and beyond: A scoping review and map of methods guidance.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- Article
- Advancing occupational therapy scoping reviews: Recommendations to enhance quality and methodological rigour.Australian occupational therapy journal · 2025Article
- A scoping review of the existing evidence linking school food procurement contract type with school food provision.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Private sector engagement for immunisation programmes: a pragmatic scoping review of 25 years of evidence on good practice in low-income and middle-income countries.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Relationship between early age at menarche, older age at menopause and subtypes of breast cancer: a scoping review.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2024Article
- Article
- Knowledge management tools and mechanisms for evidence-informed decision-making in the WHO European Region: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- A scoping review of resilience among transition-age youth with serious mental illness: tensions, knowledge gaps, and future directions.BMC psychiatry · 2023Article
- Leveraging Administrative Data to Better Understand and Address Child Maltreatment: A Scoping Review of Data Linkage Studies.Child maltreatment · 2023Article
- Usability evaluation of mHealth apps for elderly individuals: a scoping review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is consensus that health services commissioning and clinical practice should be driven by scientific evidence. However, workload pressures, accessibility of peer reviewed publications and skills to find, appraise, and synthesise relevant evidence are often cited as barriers to uptake of research evidence by practitioners and commissioners alike. In recent years a growing requirement for rapid evidence synthesis to inform commissioning decisions about healthcare service delivery and provision of care contributed to an increasing popularity of scoping literature reviews (SLRs). Yet, comprehensive guidelines for conducting and reporting SLRs are still relatively scarce.
methodsThe exemplar review used as a worked example aimed to provide a readily available, comprehensive, and user-friendly repository of research evidence for local commissioners to help them make evidence-informed decisions about redesigning East of England Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services. In conducting the review, we were broadly guided by Arksey and O'Malley's framework, however some modifications were made at different stages to better reflect the largely pragmatic objective of this review. This paper compares the methodology used with existing methodological frameworks for scoping studies, to add to the existing knowledge base.
resultsWe proposed the following advancements to the existing SLR frameworks: (i) Assemble a research team with complementary skills and expertise; (ii); Draw on expertise of external partners, particularly practitioners, decision-makers and commissioners who will be translating findings into practice; (iii) Pre-register the review protocol. Keep a detailed record of all steps and decisions and consider how they would impact on generalisability and utility of review findings; (iv) Use systematic procedures for literature searchers, selection of studies, data extraction and analysis; (v) If feasible, appraise the quality of included evidence; (vi) Be transparent about limitations of findings.
conclusionsDespite some methodological limitations, scoping literature reviews are a useful method of rapidly synthesising a large body of evidence to inform commissioning and transformation of CAMHS. SLRs allow researchers to start with a broader questions, to explore the issue from different perspectives and perhaps find more comprehensive solutions that are not only effective, but also accounted for their feasibility and acceptability to key stakeholders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.