Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33543511›Full record

ReviewJournal of advanced nursing2021

Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics.

Danielle Pollock, Ellen L Davies, Micah D J Peters, Andrea C Tricco, Lyndsay Alexander, Patricia McInerney, Christina M Godfrey, Hanan Khalil, Zachary Munn

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of advanced nursing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 315 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
315citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

315 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Magnesium therapy in persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn: a scoping review.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

255 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

9 authors.

Danielle PollockJBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6604-0609
Ellen L DaviesAdelaide Nursing School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Micah D J PetersAdelaide Nursing School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Andrea C TriccoLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Lyndsay AlexanderSchool of Health Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK.
Patricia McInerneyFaculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Christina M GodfreyQueen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Hanan KhalilSchool of Psychology and Public Health, Department of Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia.
Zachary MunnJBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Funding

AT is supported by the Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of this study is to discuss the available methodological resources and best-practice guidelines for the development and completion of scoping reviews relevant to nursing and midwifery policy, practice, and research.

designDiscussion Paper. DATA SOURCES: Scoping reviews that exemplify best practice are explored with reference to the recently updated JBI scoping review guide (2020) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review extension (PRISMA-ScR). IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING AND MIDWIFERY: Scoping reviews are an increasingly common form of evidence synthesis. They are used to address broad research questions and to map evidence from a variety of sources. Scoping reviews are a useful form of evidence synthesis for those in nursing and midwifery and present opportunities for researchers to review a broad array of evidence and resources. However, scoping reviews still need to be conducted with rigour and transparency.

conclusionThis study provides guidance and advice for researchers and clinicians who are preparing to undertake an evidence synthesis and are considering a scoping review methodology in the field of nursing and midwifery. IMPACT: With the increasing popularity of scoping reviews, criticism of the rigour, transparency, and appropriateness of the methodology have been raised across multiple academic and clinical disciplines, including nursing and midwifery. This discussion paper provides a unique contribution by discussing each component of a scoping review, including: developing research questions and objectives; protocol development; developing eligibility criteria and the planned search approach; searching and selecting the evidence; extracting and analysing evidence; presenting results; and summarizing the evidence specifically for the fields of nursing and midwifery. Considerations for when to select this methodology and how to prepare a review for publication are also discussed. This approach is applied to the disciplines of nursing and midwifery to assist nursing and/or midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics.

Indexed as

MidwiferyFemaleHumansPregnancyResearch DesignResearch PersonnelScoping Reviews as TopicStudentsevidence synthesismethodologymidwiferynursingPRISMA-ScRreportingscoping review

Identifiers

PMID33543511
PMCPMC8049063

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.