AI evidence extraction

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

Andrea C. Tricco, Erin Lillie, Wasifa Zarin, Kelly K. O’Brien, Heather Colquhoun, Danielle Levac et al. · Annals of Internal Medicine · 2018

AI-generated evidence extraction, verified across multiple analytical personas. Not a substitute for the peer-reviewed original.

6/10

Relevance

1/4

Quality (LMQS)

Evidence

40,391

Citations

3528.03

FWCI

Top 10%

Impact

This is an AI analysis. Read the peer-reviewed original at the publisher: https://doi.org/10.7326/m18-0850

Methodology & findings

Study design

Expert panel consensus development following EQUATOR Network guidance. A 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads developed the checklist using published methodological guidance.

Sample

N = 26, 2 groups

Primary method

The development process followed published guidance from the EQUATOR Network for developing reporting guidelines. This represents a methodological/consensus approach rather than statistical analysis.

Main result

The scoping review methodology provides a systematic approach to evidence synthesis. The authors found that "The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items" designed to improve the methodological and reporting quality of scoping reviews. The PRISMA-ScR was developed to help various stakeholders "develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews."

Reports effect sizes.

Research paradigm

Positivist/normative (methodological guidance development)

Author conclusions

"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." The authors conclude that this reporting checklist will improve transparency and quality of scoping review reporting across diverse stakeholder groups.

Risk of bias

Expert panel composition bias - 24-member panel may not be globally representative; Publication bias in selection of guidance from EQUATOR Network; Potential selection bias in which scoping review practices were considered for the checklist; Consensus-based methodology may obscure disagreement among experts

Open questions raised

The paper identifies that "Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement," indicating gaps in the current standardization and reporting practices for scoping reviews.
The authors identify that "methodological and reporting quality need improvement" in scoping reviews, suggesting a gap in standardized reporting practices for this type of knowledge synthesis.
The abstract identifies that "methodological and reporting quality need improvement" for scoping reviews, suggesting gaps in how scoping reviews are currently being conducted and reported, though specific future research directions are not detailed in the abstract.
The paper identifies that "although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement," establishing the primary gap that the PRISMA-ScR checklist addresses.
The paper identifies that scoping reviews, while increasingly conducted, suffer from quality issues: "Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement." The authors developed the PRISMA-ScR to address this gap in reporting standards.
The paper identifies that "scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis" require improved "methodological and reporting quality," indicating a gap in standardized reporting guidance for this research synthesis method.

Data: not_statedCode: not_statedExtracted from: pdfAgreement 62%

Explore related topics

Systematic Review Automation Knowledge Synthesis Literature Review