Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33300124›Full record

ArticleMedical education2021

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review.

Lauren A Maggio, Kelsey Larsen, Aliki Thomas, Joseph A Costello, Anthony R Artino

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

Article in Medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
–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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Postgraduate Psychiatric Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Prehospital critical care dispatch: a scoping review (PHASE).Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Lauren A MaggioDepartment of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2997-6133
Kelsey LarsenDepartment of Politics, Security, and International Affairs, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0504-0450
Aliki ThomasSchool of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Institute of Health Sciences Education, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9807-6609
Joseph A CostelloUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0412-6562
Anthony R ArtinoDepartment of Health, Human Function, and Rehabilitation Sciences, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2661-7853

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOver the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities.

methodThe authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA-ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review.

resultsOne hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA-ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal.

conclusionsScoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalHumansKnowledgePublicationsScoping Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID33300124
PMCPMC8247025

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.