Rafael Alves ITM

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

Leitura de 5 min

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

Resumo

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.

Bibliografia

C.  TRICCO, Andrea et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 4 set. 2018.

Bibliografia Latex

@article{c.tricco2018,
  title = {{{PRISMA Extension}} for {{Scoping Reviews}} ({{PRISMA-ScR}}): {{Checklist}} and {{Explanation}}},
  author = {C. ~Tricco, Andrea and Lillie, Erin and Zarin, Wasifa and K. ~O'Brien, Kelly and Colquhoun, Heather and Levac, Danielle and Moher, David and D.J. ~Peters, Micah and Horsley, Tanya and Weeks, Laura and Hempel, Susanne and A. ~Akl, Elie and Chang, Christine and McGowan, Jessie and Stewart, Lesley and Hartling, Lisa and Aldcroft, Adrian and G. ~Wilson, Michael and Garritty, Chantelle and Lewin, Simon and M. ~Godfrey, Christina and T. ~Macdonald, Marilyn and V. ~Langlois, Etienne and {Soares-Weiser}, Karla and Moriarty, Jo and Clifford, Tammy and Tun{\c c}alp, {\"O}zge and E. ~Straus, Sharon},
  year = 2018,
  month = sep,
  journal = {Annals of Internal Medicine},
  publisher = {American College of Physicians},
  doi = {10.7326/M18-0850},
  urldate = {2025-12-08},
  language = {en}
}

Minhas Notas

Objetivo

  • …

Método

  • …

Resultados

  • …

Comentários Extras

  • …

Referências

  1. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scopingreviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:15. doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. A guide to knowledge synthesis: a knowledge synthesis chapter. 2010. Accessed at www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41382.html on 10 January 2018.
  3. Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1291-4. [PMID:25034198] doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013
  4. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, SoaresCB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J EvidBased Healthc. 2015;13:141-6. [PMID: 26134548] doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050
  5. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Baldini Soares C, Khalil H,Parker D. Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, eds. JoannaBriggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. Adelaide, Australia: JoannaBriggs Inst; 2017.
  6. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodologicalframework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19-32.
  7. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancingthe methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69. [PMID: 20854677] doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
  8. Altman DG, Simera I. Using reporting guidelines effectively to ensure good reporting of health research. In: Moher D, Altman D,Schulz K, Simera I, Wager E, eds. Guidelines for Reporting HealthResearch: A User’s Manual. Hoboken, NJ: J Wiley; 2014:32-40.
  9. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000217. [PMID: 20169112] doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217
  10. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264-9. [PMID:19622511] doi:10.7326/0003-4819151-4-200908180-00135
  11. Tricco AC, Zarin W, Ghassemi M, Nincic V, Lillie E, Page MJ, et al.Same family, different species: methodological conduct and qualityvaries according to purpose for five types of knowledge synthesis.J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;96:133-42. [PMID: 29103958] doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.014
  12. McInnes MD,Bossuyt PM.Pitfalls of systematic reviews and metaanalyses in imaging research. Radiology. 2015;277:13-21. [PMID:26402491] doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142779
  13. Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks JJ, Harbord RM, Takwoingi Y. Analysing and presenting results. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Version 1.0. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2010. Ac cessed at https://methods.cochrane.org/sites/methods.cochrane.org.sdt/files/public/uploads/Chapter%2010%20-%20Version%201.0.pdf on 3 August 2018.
  14. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al; QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for thequality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med.2011;155:529-36. [PMID: 22007046] doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8201110180-00009
  15. Schmucker C, Motschall E, Antes G, Meerpohl JJ. [Methods ofevidence mapping. A systematic review]. BundesgesundheitsblattGesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2013;56:1390-7. [PMID:23978984] doi:10.1007/s00103-013-1818-y
  16. Miake-Lye IM, Hempel S, Shanman R, Shekelle PG. What is anevidence map?Asystematic review of published evidence maps andtheir definitions, methods, and products. Syst Rev. 2016;5:28. [PMID:26864942] doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x
  17. EQUATOR Network. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).
  18. Accessed at www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#55 on 10 January 2018.
  19. PRISMA. Extensions in development: Preferred Reporting Itemsfor Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). 2015. Accessed at www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/InDevelopment.aspx on10 January 2018.
  20. Qualtrics. 2018. Accessed at www.qualtrics.com/uk on 10 January2018.
  21. O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Baxter L, Tricco AC, Straus S,et al. Advancing scoping study methodology: a web-based surveyand consultation of perceptions on terminology, definition andmethodological steps. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:305. [PMID:27461419] doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1579-z
  22. The Royal Institute of International Affairs. Chatham House Rule.
  23. Accessed at www.chathamhouse.org/chatham-house-rule on14 June 2018.
  24. Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and healthservices research. BMJ. 1995;311:376-80. [PMID: 7640549]
  25. Sli.do. 2012. Accessed at www.sli.do on 10 January 2018.
  26. TranscribeMe. 2018. Accessed at https://transcribeme.com on27 February 2018.
  27. Conceptboard. 2018. Accessed at https://conceptboard.com on14 June 2018.
  28. Lourida I, Abbott RA, Rogers M, Lang IA, Stein K, Kent B, et al.Dissemination and implementation research in dementia care: a systematic scoping review and evidence map. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17:
  29. [PMID: 28709402] doi:10.1186/s12877-017-0528-y
  30. Knowledge Translation Program. 2016. Accessed at https://knowledgetranslation.net on 10 January 2018.
  31. Penelope. 2017. Accessed at www.penelope.ai on 28 February2018.
  32. World Health Organization. Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research. 2018. Accessed at www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/en on27 February 2018.
  33. Global Evidence Synthesis Initiative. 2016. Accessed at www.gesiinitiative.com on 27 February 2018.

Visão de gráfico

Backlinks