AI evidence extraction

Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews

Micah D.J. Peters, Casey Marnie, Andrea C. Tricco, Danielle Pollock, Zachary Munn, Lyndsay Alexander et al. · JBI Evidence Synthesis · 2020

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

5/10

Relevance

1/4

Quality (LMQS)

Evidence

6,688

Citations

316.33

FWCI

Top 10%

Impact

This is an AI analysis. Read the peer-reviewed original at the publisher: https://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-20-00167

Methodology & findings

Study design

Methodological guidance development through expert consensus and systematic review methodology refinement.

Main result

The updated JBI guidance for scoping reviews "provides up-to-date guidance that can be used by authors when conducting a scoping review" and "aligns with the PRISMA-ScR, which can be used to report the conduct of a scoping review." The guidance reflects current methodological best practices for scoping review methodology.

Reports effect sizes.

Research paradigm

Interpretivist/Methodological guidance development

Author conclusions

The authors conclude that "The latest JBI guidance for scoping reviews provides up-to-date guidance that can be used by authors when conducting a scoping review. Furthermore, it aligns with the PRISMA-ScR, which can be used to report the conduct of a scoping review." This indicates the primary contribution is establishing coherent, current methodological guidance aligned with established reporting standards.

Limitations

The abstract indicates that "A series of ongoing and future methodological projects identified by the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are planned," suggesting the current guidance represents a point-in-time formulation subject to future refinement rather than a final or complete methodological framework.

Open questions raised

The authors identify that "A series of ongoing and future methodological projects identified by the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are planned," indicating recognition of areas requiring further development and refinement in scoping review methodology.
The authors identify that "A series of ongoing and future methodological projects identified by the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are planned," indicating recognition of gaps requiring continued methodological development and refinement.
The authors identify that "A series of ongoing and future methodological projects identified by the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are planned." This suggests gaps remain in the methodology that require continued development.
The authors identify ongoing and future methodological projects to "further refine the methodology" of scoping reviews, indicating gaps in current understanding that require continued investigation and refinement.
The authors identify that there are "ongoing and future methodological projects" needed to "further refine the methodology" of scoping reviews.
The authors identify that "A series of ongoing and future methodological projects identified by the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are planned," indicating that methodological refinement of scoping review procedures remains an area for continued development.

Data: not_statedCode: not_statedExtracted from: pdfAgreement 70%

Explore related topics

Systematic Review Automation Knowledge Synthesis Literature Review