PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

<p class="first" id="d884742e443">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. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. 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. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. 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. </p>

Related collections

Author and article information

Journal

Title: Annals of Internal Medicine

Abbreviated Title: Ann Intern Med

Publisher: American College of Physicians

ISSN (Print): 0003-4819

Publication date (Electronic): September 04 2018

Affiliations

[1 ]St. Michael's Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.C.T., S.E.S.)

[2 ]St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (E.L., W.Z.)

[3 ]University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (K.K.O., H.C.)

[4 ]Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts (D.L.)

[5 ]Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (D.M., C.G.)

[6 ]University of South Australia and University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia (M.D.P.)

[7 ]Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (T.H.)

[8 ]Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (L.W., T.C.)

[9 ]RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California (S.H.)

[10 ]American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon (E.A.A.)

[11 ]Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland (C.C.)

[12 ]University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (J.M.)

[13 ]University of York, York, United Kingdom (L.S.)

[14 ]University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (L.H.)

[15 ]BMJ Open, London, United Kingdom (A.A.)

[16 ]McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (M.G.W.)

[17 ]Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway, and South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa (S.L.)

[18 ]Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada (C.M.G.)

[19 ]Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (M.T.M.)

[20 ]World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (E.V.L., Ö.T.)

[21 ]Cochrane, London, United Kingdom (K.S.)

[22 ]King's College London, London, United Kingdom (J.M.)

Article

DOI: 10.7326/M18-0850

PubMed ID: 30178033

SO-VID: 10c8161f-ae39-465a-816b-4036a6cdfd1f

History

Data availability:

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 7,575

See all cited by

- Version 1