Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.

No abstract

We would like to acknowledge the support, feedback, and advice we have received on the development of the updated scoping reviews methodology from the JBI Scientific Committee. We also acknowledge and thank previous members of the group for their past contributions.

No abstract

We would like to acknowledge the support, feedback, and advice we have received on the development of the updated scoping reviews methodology from the JBI Scientific Committee. We also acknowledge and thank previous members of the group for their past contributions.

The current methodology recommends including both quantitative and qualitative research, as well as evidence from economic and expert opinion sources to answer questions of effectiveness, appropriateness, meaningfulness and feasibility of health practices and delivery methods. The proposed framework has the potential to provide options when faced with complex concepts or broad research questions.

Aim The aim of this study is to discuss the available methodological resources and best‐practice guidelines for the development and completion of scoping reviews relevant to nursing and midwifery policy, practice, and research. Design Discussion Paper. Data Sources Scoping reviews that exemplify best practice are explored with reference to the recently updated JBI scoping review guide (2020) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Scoping Review extension (PRISMA‐ScR). Implications for nursing and midwifery Scoping reviews are an increasingly common form of evidence synthesis. They are used to address broad research questions and to map evidence from a variety of sources. Scoping reviews are a useful form of evidence synthesis for those in nursing and midwifery and present opportunities for researchers to review a broad array of evidence and resources. However, scoping reviews still need to be conducted with rigour and transparency. Conclusion This study provides guidance and advice for researchers and clinicians who are preparing to undertake an evidence synthesis and are considering a scoping review methodology in the field of nursing and midwifery. Impact With the increasing popularity of scoping reviews, criticism of the rigour, transparency, and appropriateness of the methodology have been raised across multiple academic and clinical disciplines, including nursing and midwifery. This discussion paper provides a unique contribution by discussing each component of a scoping review, including: developing research questions and objectives; protocol development; developing eligibility criteria and the planned search approach; searching and selecting the evidence; extracting and analysing evidence; presenting results; and summarizing the evidence specifically for the fields of nursing and midwifery. Considerations for when to select this methodology and how to prepare a review for publication are also discussed. This approach is applied to the disciplines of nursing and midwifery to assist nursing and/or midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics.

Objective:The purpose of this article is to clearly describe how to develop a robust and detailed scoping review protocol, which is the first stage of the scoping review process. This paper provides detailed guidance and a checklist for prospective authors to ensure that their protocols adequately inform both the conduct of the ensuing review and their readership.Introduction:Scoping reviews are a common approach to evidence synthesis for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers across a variety of fields. Scoping reviews are not concerned with making analytical comparisons based on pooling results data from multiple primary sources of evidence, but rather on collating and describing the evidence and presenting the summation in a clearly illustrated format. Methods for undertaking and reporting scoping reviews continue to be refined. Some prospective reviewers may be uncertain how to plan, structure, and report scoping review protocols, as there is little or no specific guidance for scoping review protocols yet available.Methods:This guidance was developed by members of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group based on previous experience and expertise in developing scoping review and evidence synthesis methodologies, protocols, and reviews, as well as through experiences working with and guiding authors to develop scoping review protocols. Elements of a comprehensive scoping review protocol are outlined and explained in detail.Conclusion:Knowledge users of evidence syntheses rely on clear and transparent reporting to understand and use the results of published work to drive evidence-based improvements within health care and beyond. It is hoped that readers will be able to use this guidance when developing protocols to assist them in planning future scoping reviews and to carry them out with a high degree of transparency.