ArticleMedical education2026
Reprioritising consultation in scoping reviews: Clarifying purposes and practices.
Article in Medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reprioritising consultation in scoping reviews: Clarifying purposes and practices.Medical education · 2026Article
- How do academic institutions assess and demonstrate their social mission? A scoping review protocol.Canadian medical education journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The consultation stage of scoping reviews, originally proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and further developed by Levac et al and the Joanna Briggs Institute, remains a conceptually ambiguous and inconsistently applied component of knowledge synthesis. In this context, consultation refers to the planned, purposeful engagement with knowledge users to elicit input on priorities, interpretation and gaps and to inform dissemination strategies. Although consultation has been framed as a means to validate findings or inform dissemination, it is often treated as an optional or peripheral activity, if included at all. In this manuscript, we revisit the consultation stage as an integral, collaborative and methodologically embedded feature of scoping reviews, one that warrants the same reflexivity, rigour and transparency as other stages of the process. Drawing from recent critiques in the health professions education literature and our own experience conducting knowledge syntheses, we position consultation not as a standalone study or superfluous add-on but as a dialogical, contextually responsive strategy for engaging knowledge users meaningfully. We offer practical guidance on how to design and execute consultations with methodological intentionality, aligned with the scoping review's epistemological stance and research objectives. Through case examples from our work and additional strategies drawn from the literature, we highlight how consultation can enhance the credibility, usability and relevance of review findings. We also reflect on the ethical and epistemic considerations of consultation, including issues of authorship and the challenges that arise when feedback diverges from review findings. In doing so, we call for a shift in how the consultation stage is conceptualised, designed and reported in scoping reviews. Rather than viewing consultation as a symbolic or confirmatory gesture, we argue that it should be embraced as a dynamic, humanising process that deepens interpretation, challenges assumptions and expands the real-world applicability of scoping review findings.
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.