Toward a framework for the design, implementation, and reporting of methodology scoping reviews

Predictive Healthcare Analytics Group

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.014

Toward a framework for the design, implementation, and reporting of methodology scoping reviews

Predictive Healthcare Analytics Group

Population Health Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	191-197
Number of pages	7
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	127
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.014
Publication status	Published - Nov 2020

Keywords

Methodology scoping reviews
Reporting
Scoping reviews
Study design
Systematic reviews

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.014

Cite this

@article{de2d3bbf98c34bef85e6e6031260fa61,

title = "Toward a framework for the design, implementation, and reporting of methodology scoping reviews",

abstract = "Background and Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.",

keywords = "Methodology scoping reviews, Reporting, Scoping reviews, Study design, Systematic reviews",

author = "{Predictive Healthcare Analytics Group} and Martin, {Glen P.} and Jenkins, {David A.} and Lucy Bull and Rose Sisk and Lijing Lin and William Hulme and Anthony Wilson and Wenjuan Wang and Michael Barrowman and Camilla Sammut-Powell and Alexander Pate and Matthew Sperrin and Niels Peek",

year = "2020",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.014",

language = "English",

volume = "127",

pages = "191--197",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Toward a framework for the design, implementation, and reporting of methodology scoping reviews

AU - Predictive Healthcare Analytics Group

AU - Martin, Glen P.

AU - Jenkins, David A.

AU - Bull, Lucy

AU - Sisk, Rose

AU - Lin, Lijing

AU - Hulme, William

AU - Wilson, Anthony

AU - Wang, Wenjuan

AU - Barrowman, Michael

AU - Sammut-Powell, Camilla

AU - Pate, Alexander

AU - Sperrin, Matthew

AU - Peek, Niels

PY - 2020/11

Y1 - 2020/11

N2 - Background and Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.

AB - Background and Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.

KW - Methodology scoping reviews

KW - Reporting

KW - Scoping reviews

KW - Study design

KW - Systematic reviews

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089605749&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.014

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.014

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 32726605

AN - SCOPUS:85089605749

SN - 0895-4356

VL - 127

SP - 191

EP - 197

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

ER -

Toward a framework for the design, implementation, and reporting of methodology scoping reviews

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this