Scoping Review Methodology: History, Theory and Practice
https://doi.org/10.15690/vsp.v20i3/2271
Abstract
The number of literature reviews is growing every year. One relatively new type of review is the scoping review (ScR). Only a handful of such studies have been produced in Russian academia. It is, therefore, crucial to inform Russian-speaking audiences about the history and evolution of the ScR methodology, the stages and features of such a study, and relevant international guidelines. Relevant data is presented in this narrative review. A PRISMA-ScR checklist has also been translated, taking into account recommendations for the translation of PRISMA documents. ScR published in pediatrics and related fields have also been analyzed and it has been noted that the evaluated authors did not sufficiently follow current guidelines for writing ScR.
Keywords
Supporting agencies: Not specified
About the Authors
Elena N. Kulakova
Voronezh State Medical University named after N.N. Burdenko
Russian Federation
Disclosure of interest:
Russian Federation
Voronezh
Disclosure of interest:
Not declared
Tatjana L. Nastausheva
Voronezh State Medical University named after N.N. Burdenko
Russian Federation
Disclosure of interest:
Russian Federation
Voronezh
Disclosure of interest:
Not declared
Inna V. Kondratjeva
Voronezh State Medical University named after N.N. Burdenko
Russian Federation
Disclosure of interest:
Russian Federation
Voronezh
Disclosure of interest:
Not declared
References
1. Ivin AA. Filosofskoe issledovanie nauki: Monografiya. Мoscow: Prospekt; 2017. 544 p. (In Russ).
2. Popper K. Logic of scientific discovery: transl. from eng. Moscow: AST: Astrel’; 2010. 565 p. (In Russ).
3. DePoy E, Gitlin LN. Introduction to Research. Understanding and applying multiple strategies. Transl. from engl., Vlasov VV, ed. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media; 2017. 432 p. (In Russ).
4. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–2126. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167
5. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009; 26(2):91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
6. Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J. 2019;36(3):202–222. doi: 10.1111/hir.12276
7. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–473. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850
8. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
9. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:15. doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4
10. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616
11. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (2020 version). In: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Aromataris E, Munn Z, eds). JBI, 2020. Available online: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. Accessed on May 2, 2021. doi: 10.46658/JBIMES-20-12
12. Dulaev AK, Kutjanov DI, Zhelnov PV, Brizhan’ SL. Health-care resources to care for spinal conditions: international experience (a systematic scoping review). Genij ortopedii. 2020;26(4):607–615. (In Russ). doi: 10.18019/1028-4427-2020-26-4-607-615
13. Kulakova EN, Nastausheva TL, Kondrat’eva IV, et al. Transition of adolescents with chronic kidney disease to adult health service: scoping review. Voprosy sovremennoi pediatrii — Current Pediatrics. 2021;20(1):38–50. (In Russ). doi: 10.15690/vsp.v20i1.2235
14. Kulakova EN, Nastausheva TL, Kondrat’eva IV. Definition and criteria of acute kidney disease: scoping review. Nefrologija i dializ. 2020;22(1):71–83. (In Russ). doi: 10.28996/2618-9801-2020-1-71-83
15. Balykhin MG, Kosycheva MA. Obzor predmetnogo polya kak zhanr nauchnoi kommunikatsii. Health, Food & Biotechnology. 2020;2(1):7–10. (In Russ). doi: 10.36107/hfb.2020.i1.s284
16. Raitskaya LK, Tikhonova EV. Reviews as a promising kind of scholarly publication, its types and characteristics. Nauchnyi Redaktor i Izdatel’ = Science Editor and Publisher. 2019;4(3–4):131–139. (In Russ). doi: 10.24069/2542-0267-2019-3-4-131-139
17. Raitskaya LK, Tikhonova EV. Obzor obzorov kak instrument vyyavleniya trendov v issleduemoi oblasti znaniya. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii. 2020;29(3):37–57. (In Russ). doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57
18. Milchakov KS. Doing an information study in medicine: tips about strategies and recourses for literature review. Science & Healthcare. 2019;21(3):68–76. (In Russ).
19. Tishkina SN, Matskevich VE, Ledovskikh JuA, et al. Regulatory framework of the oncological medical care provision. Farmakoekonomika. Sovremennaya farmakoeko nomika i farmakoepidemiologiya = Farmakoekonomika. Modern Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmacoepidemiology 2020;12(3):304–315. (In Russ). doi:10.17749/2070-4909/farmakoekonomika.2020.052.
20. The Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization. A scoping review on health services delivery in Kyrgyzstan: what does the evidence tell us? World Health Organization; 2018. 69 p. (In Russ). Доступно по: https://www.euro.who.int/ru/health-topics/Health-systems/primary-health-care/publications/2018/a-scoping-review-on-health-services-delivery-in-kyrgyzstan-what-does-the-evidence-tell-us-2018. Ссылка активна на 10.05.2021.
21. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Blackmore H, Kitas GD. Writing a narrative biomedical review: Considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Rheumatol Int. 2011;31(11):1409–1417. doi: 10.1007/s00296-011-1999-3
22. Baethge C, Goldbeck-Wood S, Mertens S. SANRA — a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8
23. Davis K, Drey N, Gould D. What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(10):1386–1400. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.02.010
24. Armstrong R, Hall BJ, Doyle J, Waters E. “Scoping the scope” of a cochrane review. J Public Health (Bangkok). 2011;33(1):147–150. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdr015
25. Daudt HML, Van Mossel C, Scott SJ. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: A large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:48. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-48
26. Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, et al. Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(12):1291–1294. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013
27. Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, et al. A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(4):371–385. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1123
28. Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–146. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050
29. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
30. Fulop N, Allen P, Clarke A, Black N. Studying the Organisation and Delivery of Health Services: Research Methods. Routledge; 2001.
31. O’Malley L, Croucher K. Supported housing services for people with mental health problems: A scoping study. Hous Stud. 2005;20(5):831–845. doi: 10.1080/02673030500214126
32. Arksey H, O’Malley L, Baldwin S, et al. Services to Support Carers of People with Mental Health Problems. Natl Coord Cent Serv Deliv Organ. 2002. Available online: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/73297/1/Document.pdf. Accessed on May 10, 2021.
33. Ehrich K, Freeman GK, Richards SC, et al. How to do a scoping exercise: continuity of care. Res Policy Plan. 2002;20(1):25–29.
34. Freeman G, Shepperd S, Robinson I, Ehrich K. Continuity of Care. Report of a Scoping Exercise for the National Co-Ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R&D (NCCSDO). London: NCCSDO; 2001.
35. Anderson S, Allen P, Peckham S, Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: Scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Heal Res Policy Syst. 2008;6(1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-6-7
36. Brien SE, Lorenzetti DL, Lewis S, et al. Overview of a formal scoping review on health system report cards. Implement Sci. 2010;5:2. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-2
37. Cacchione PZ. The Evolving Methodology of Scoping Reviews. Clin Nurs Res. 2016;25(2):115–119. doi: 10.1177/1054773816637493
38. Khalil H, Peters M, Godfrey CM, et al. An Evidence-Based Approach to Scoping Reviews. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nurs. 2016;13(2):118–123. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12144
39. Peters MDJ. In no uncertain terms: The importance of a defined objective in scoping reviews. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Reports. 2016;14(2):1–4. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2016-2838
40. Peters MDJ. Managing and Coding References for Systematic Reviews and Scoping Reviews in EndNote. Med Ref Serv Q. 2017; 36(1):19–31. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2017.1259891
41. O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. Advancing scoping study methodology: A web-based survey and consultation of perceptions on terminology, definition and methodological steps. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):305. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1579-z
42. Morris M, Boruff JT, Gore GC. Scoping reviews: Establishing the role of the librarian. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(4):346–353. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.020
43. Martin GP, Jenkins DA, Bull L, et al. Toward a framework for the design, implementation, and reporting of methodology scoping reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;127:191–197. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.014
44. Schultz A, Goertzen L, Rothney J, et al. A scoping approach to systematically review published reviews: Adaptations and recom mendations. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9(1):116–123. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1272
45. Thomas A, Lubarsky S, Varpio L, et al. Scoping reviews in health professions education: challenges, considerations and lessons learned about epistemology and methodology. Adv Heal Sci Educ. 2020;25(4):989–1002. doi: 10.1007/s10459-019-09932-2
46. Thomas A, Lubarsky S, Durning SJ, Young ME. Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Demystifying scoping reviews. Acad Med. 2017;92(2):161–166. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001452
47. Harris SP, Gould R, Fujiura G. Enhancing rigor and practice of scoping reviews in social policy research: Considerations from a worked example on the Americans with Disabilities Act. Work. 2015;50(2):323–334. doi: 10.3233/WOR-141982
48. Rumrill PD, Fitzgerald SM, Merchant WR. Using scoping literature reviews as a means of understanding and interpreting existing literature. Work. 2010;35(3):399–404. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2010-0998
49. Hidalgo Landa A, Szabo I, Le Brun L, et al. An Evidence-Based Approach to Scoping Reviews. Electron J Inf Syst Eval. 2011; 14(1):46–52.
50. Lockwood C, dos Santos KB, Pap R. Practical Guidance for Knowledge Synthesis: Scoping Review Methods. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2019;13(5):287–294. doi: 10.1016/j.anr.2019.11.002
51. Lockwood C, Tricco AC. Preparing scoping reviews for publication using methodological guides and reporting standards. Nurs Heal Sci. 2020;22(1):1–4. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12673
52. Pollock D, Davies EL, Peters MDJ, et al. Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(4): 2102–2113. doi: 10.1111/jan.14743
53. Sucharew H, Macaluso M. Methods for research evidence synthesis: The scoping review approach. J Hosp Med. 2019;14(7): 416–418. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3248
54. Fitzgerald SM, Rumrill PD, Merchant WR. A response to Harris, Gould, and Fujiura: Beyond scoping reviews: A case for mixed-methods research reviews. Work. 2015;50(2):335–339. doi: 10.3233/WOR-141983
55. Peterson J, Pearce PF, Ferguson LA, Langford CA. Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2017;29(1):12–16. doi: 10.1002/2327-6924.12380
56. Anderson JK, Howarth E, Vainre M, et al. Advancing methodology for scoping reviews: Recommendations arising from a scoping literature review (SLR) to inform transformation of Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020; 20(1):242. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01127-3
57. Bakaki PM, Staley J, Liu R, et al. A transdisciplinary team approach to scoping reviews: The case of pediatric polypharmacy. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):102. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0560-4
58. Dalmer NK. Unsettling Knowledge Synthesis Methods Using Institutional Ethnography: Reflections on the Scoping Review as a Critical Knowledge Synthesis Tool. Qual Health Res. 2020; 30(14):2361–2373. doi: 10.1177/1049732320949167
59. Cooper S, Cant R, Kelly M, et al. An Evidence-Based Checklist for Improving Scoping Review Quality. Clin Nurs Res. 2021;30(3): 230–240. doi: 10.1177/1054773819846024
60. Khalil H, Bennett M, Godfrey C, et al. Evaluation of the JBI scoping reviews methodology by current users. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2019;18(1):95–100. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000202
61. Khalil H, Peters MD, Tricco AC, et al. Conducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 130:156–160. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.009
62. PRISMA Translations Policy. Available online: http://www.prisma-statement.org/Translations/TranslationsPolicy. Accessed on May 10, 2021.
63. PRISMA 2009 Контрольный лист. [PRISMA 2009 Checklist. (In Russ). Available online: http://www.prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMARussianchecklist.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2021.
Review
For citations:
Kulakova E.N., Nastausheva T.L., Kondratjeva I.V. Scoping Review Methodology: History, Theory and Practice. Current Pediatrics. 2021;20(3):210-222. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15690/vsp.v20i3/2271
Views:
2438
Email this article 
