However, as my workshop participant pointed out, the devil is in the details. Writers find only two items to guide them: we are to “describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known… and explain why the review questions/objectives lend themselves to a scoping review approach” and we should provide “an explicit statement of the questions and objectives being addressed with reference to their key elements (e.g., population or participants, concepts, and context)” ( p 469). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist focuses significantly more attention on Methods and Results than on Introductory framing. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for designing scoping reviews give more attention to title than introduction: the advice is mainly that the latter “should be comprehensive and should cover the main elements of the topic, important definitions, and the existing knowledge in the field” (11.3.4). Two main sources of scoping review guidance illustrate this point.
0 kommentar(er)
