Explore the vast range of titles available.

The scoping review has become increasingly popular as a form of knowledge synthesis. However, a lack of consensus on scoping review terminology, definition, methodology, and reporting limits the potential of this form of synthesis. In this article, we propose recommendations to further advance the field of scoping review methodology. We summarize current understanding of scoping review publication rates, terms, definitions, and methods. We propose three recommendations for clarity in term, definition and methodology. We recommend adopting the terms “scoping review” or “scoping study” and the use of a proposed definition. Until such time as further guidance is developed, we recommend the use of the methodological steps outlined in the Arksey and O'Malley framework and further enhanced by Levac et al. The development of reporting guidance for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews is underway. Consistency in the proposed domains and methodologies of scoping reviews, along with the development of reporting guidance, will facilitate methodological advancement, reduce confusion, facilitate collaboration and improve knowledge translation of scoping review findings.

Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to evidence synthesis with a growing suite of methodological guidance and resources to assist review authors with their planning, conduct and reporting. The latest guidance for scoping reviews includes the JBI methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses—Extension for Scoping Reviews. This paper provides readers with a brief update regarding ongoing work to enhance and improve the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews as well as information regarding the future steps in scoping review methods development. The purpose of this paper is to provide readers with a concise source of information regarding the difference between scoping reviews and other review types, the reasons for undertaking scoping reviews, and an update on methodological guidance for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. Despite available guidance, some publications use the term ‘scoping review’ without clear consideration of available reporting and methodological tools. Selection of the most appropriate review type for the stated research objectives or questions, standardised use of methodological approaches and terminology in scoping reviews, clarity and consistency of reporting and ensuring that the reporting and presentation of the results clearly addresses the review’s objective(s) and question(s) are critical components for improving the rigour of scoping reviews. Rigourous, high-quality scoping reviews should clearly follow up to date methodological guidance and reporting criteria. Stakeholder engagement is one area where further work could occur to enhance integration of consultation with the results of evidence syntheses and to support effective knowledge translation. Scoping review methodology is evolving as a policy and decision-making tool. Ensuring the integrity of scoping reviews by adherence to up-to-date reporting standards is integral to supporting well-informed decision-making.

Scoping reviews are being increasingly used by researchers. The objective of this article was to outline some challenges and potential solutions to improve the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. The JBI scoping review methodology group consists of 9 experts in the field of scoping reviews. This article summarizes the key issues facing reviewers who conduct scoping reviews and those who use the results from scoping reviews and may engage in consultations during their development. Several key issues have been identified for reviewers as challenges in conducting scoping reviews. Challenges may be faced throughout the conduct of the review, from developing the a priori protocol to finalizing the review report for publication and developing implications or recommendations for research, policy, and practice from the results of the review. Challenges to publishing scoping reviews may stem from a lack of understanding of scoping reviews by journal editors, authors, and peer reviewers to extending the conclusion drawn from these reviews to generate recommendations for practice and policy. By identifying and overcoming challenges to the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews, reviewers may better ensure that scoping reviews are effective in meeting the objectives of scoping reviews.

Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.

Scoping reviews are a type of evidence synthesis that aims to identify and map the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, field, concept, or issue, within or across a defined context or contexts. Scoping reviews can contribute to clinical practice guideline development, policy making, reduce research waste by eliminating duplication of research effort, and be a precursor to a systematic review or inform further primary research. This article aims to provide a brief introduction of how to conduct and report scoping reviews. We will discuss the role and value of scoping reviews within the evidence synthesis ecosystem, the differences and similarities between these reviews and other types of evidence syntheses such as systematic reviews, mapping reviews, evidence and gap maps, and overviews, and how to overcome common challenges often associated in the conduct, reporting, and dissemination of scoping reviews. Scoping reviews have a role in the evidence ecosystem; however, we need to acknowledge their challenges. Scoping reviews are a popular form of evidence synthesis, and further research is needed to provide clarity of current methodological challenges.

Scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and evidence map methodologies are increasingly used by researchers. The objective of this article is to outline the main difference between these types of evidence synthesis to improve their conduct. This article summarizes the key issues facing reviewers, who conduct scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and evidence maps and those who use the results and may engage in consultations during their development. Several differences exist between the methodologies, and these are in their protocol development, scope, inclusion criteria, data extraction, reporting, and use. Mapping reviews are mainly driven by questions of effectiveness of a particular intervention and hence they use the Participant Intervention Comparator Outcome Study type format similar to systematic reviews of effectiveness. Scoping reviews mostly use the Participant, context, concept (PCC) format, where they map a concept of interest relevant to a particular population in a specific setting and context. Data extraction is limited by only coding of studies and intervention characteristics in evidence maps. The results of the mapping reviews can be used inform research priorities and research funding, whereas, scoping reviews result may be used to inform policy development by clarifying key concepts and methods, and further research. We recommend authors who are planning to undertake scoping reviews confirm that their research question can be appropriately answered using a scoping review methodology, however, for broader research questions without the need for an in-depth analysis of the information, we recommend authors to consider mapping reviews.

Background Scoping reviews are used to identify knowledge gaps, set research agendas, and identify implications for decision-making. The conduct and reporting of scoping reviews is inconsistent in the literature. We conducted a scoping review to identify: papers that utilized and/or described scoping review methods; guidelines for reporting scoping reviews; and studies that assessed the quality of reporting of scoping reviews. Methods We searched nine electronic databases for published and unpublished literature scoping review papers, scoping review methodology, and reporting guidance for scoping reviews. Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion. Data abstraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative (e.g. frequencies of methods) and qualitative (i.e. content analysis of the methods) syntheses were conducted. Results After searching 1525 citations and 874 full-text papers, 516 articles were included, of which 494 were scoping reviews. The 494 scoping reviews were disseminated between 1999 and 2014, with 45 % published after 2012. Most of the scoping reviews were conducted in North America (53 %) or Europe (38 %), and reported a public source of funding (64 %). The number of studies included in the scoping reviews ranged from 1 to 2600 (mean of 118). Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology guidance for scoping reviews, only 13 % of the scoping reviews reported the use of a protocol, 36 % used two reviewers for selecting citations for inclusion, 29 % used two reviewers for full-text screening, 30 % used two reviewers for data charting, and 43 % used a pre-defined charting form. In most cases, the results of the scoping review were used to identify evidence gaps (85 %), provide recommendations for future research (84 %), or identify strengths and limitations (69 %). We did not identify any guidelines for reporting scoping reviews or studies that assessed the quality of scoping review reporting. Conclusion The number of scoping reviews conducted per year has steadily increased since 2012. Scoping reviews are used to inform research agendas and identify implications for policy or practice. As such, improvements in reporting and conduct are imperative. Further research on scoping review methodology is warranted, and in particular, there is need for a guideline to standardize reporting.

In view of the growth of published articles, there is an increasing need for studies that summarize scientific research. An increasingly common review is a “methodology scoping review,” which provides a summary of existing analytical methods, techniques and software that have been proposed or applied in research articles to address an analytical problem or further an analytical approach. However, guidelines for their design, implementation, and reporting are limited. Drawing on the experiences of the authors, which were consolidated through a series of face-to-face workshops, we summarize the challenges inherent in conducting a methodology scoping review and offer suggestions of best practice to promote future guideline development. We identified three challenges of conducting a methodology scoping review. First, identification of search terms; one cannot usually define the search terms a priori, and the language used for a particular method can vary across the literature. Second, the scope of the review requires careful consideration because new methodology is often not described (in full) within abstracts. Third, many new methods are motivated by a specific clinical question, where the methodology may only be documented in supplementary materials. We formulated several recommendations that build upon existing review guidelines. These recommendations ranged from an iterative approach to defining search terms through to screening and data extraction processes. Although methodology scoping reviews are an important aspect of research, there is currently a lack of guidelines to standardize their design, implementation, and reporting. We recommend a wider discussion on this topic. •Reviews that summarize existing analytical methods are a key aspect of research.•Guidelines for the conduct of such “methodology scoping reviews” are limited.•We present several recommendations for conducting methodology scoping reviews.

The integration of smart technologies, including wearables and voice-activated devices, is increasingly recognized for enhancing the independence and well-being of older adults. However, the long-term dynamics of their use and the coadaptation process with older adults remain poorly understood. This scoping review explores how interactions between older adults and smart technologies evolve over time to improve both user experience and technology utility. This review synthesizes existing research on the coadaptation between older adults and smart technologies, focusing on longitudinal changes in use patterns, the effectiveness of technological adaptations, and the implications for future technology development and deployment to improve user experiences. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual and PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, this scoping review examined peer-reviewed papers from databases including Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PEDro, Ovid PsycINFO, and EBSCO CINAHL from the year 2000 to August 28, 2023, and included forward and backward searches. The search was updated on March 1, 2024. Empirical studies were included if they involved (1) individuals aged 55 years or older living independently and (2) focused on interactions and adaptations between older adults and wearables and voice-activated virtual assistants in interventions for a minimum period of 8 weeks. Data extraction was informed by the selection and optimization with compensation framework and the sex- and gender-based analysis plus theoretical framework and used a directed content analysis approach. The search yielded 16,143 papers. Following title and abstract screening and a full-text review, 5 papers met the inclusion criteria. Study populations were mostly female participants and aged 73-83 years from the United States and engaged with voice-activated virtual assistants accessed through smart speakers and wearables. Users frequently used simple commands related to music and weather, integrating devices into daily routines. However, communication barriers often led to frustration due to devices' inability to recognize cues or provide personalized responses. The findings suggest that while older adults can integrate smart technologies into their lives, a lack of customization and user-friendly interfaces hinder long-term adoption and satisfaction. The studies highlight the need for technology to be further developed so they can better meet this demographic's evolving needs and call for research addressing small sample sizes and limited diversity. Our findings highlight a critical need for continued research into the dynamic and reciprocal relationship between smart technologies and older adults over time. Future studies should focus on more diverse populations and extend monitoring periods to provide deeper insights into the coadaptation process. Insights gained from this review are vital for informing the development of more intuitive, user-centric smart technology solutions to better support the aging population in maintaining independence and enhancing their quality of life. RR2-10.2196/51129.

Scoping reviews can identify a large number of evidence sources. This commentary describes and provides guidance on planning, conducting, and reporting large scoping reviews. This guidance is informed by experts in scoping review methodology, including JBI (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute) Scoping Review Methodology group members, who have also conducted and reported large scoping reviews. We propose a working definition for large scoping reviews that includes approximately 100 sources of evidence but must also consider the volume of data to be extracted, the complexity of the analyses, and purpose. We pose 6 core questions for scoping review authors to consider when planning, developing, conducting, and reporting large scoping reviews. By considering and addressing these questions, scoping review authors might better streamline and manage the conduct and reporting of large scoping reviews from the planning to publishing stage.