#Visual understanding environment for literature reviews how to#
Results from a survey on scoping review terminology, definitions, and methods showed a lack of consensus on how to conduct and report scoping reviews ( 3). A recent scoping review by members of our team suggested that although the number of scoping reviews in the literature is increasing steadily, methodological and reporting quality needs to improve in order to facilitate complete and transparent reporting ( 1). They may examine the extent (that is, size), range (variety), and nature (characteristics) of the evidence on a topic or question determine the value of undertaking a systematic review summarize findings from a body of knowledge that is heterogeneous in methods or discipline or identify gaps in the literature to aid the planning and commissioning of future research ( 1, 2). Scoping reviews can be conducted to meet various objectives.
The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item.
The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps.
0 kommentar(er)
