Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Apr 1;20(4):953-968.
doi: 10.11124/JBIES-21-00242.

Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols

Affiliations

Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols

Micah D J Peters et al. JBI Evid Synth. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Nurs Stud 2005;8 (1):19–32.
    1. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015;13 (3):141–146.
    1. Khalil H, Peters M, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Parker D. An evidence-based approach to scoping reviews. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2016;13 (2):118–123.
    1. Peters MD, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement 2021;19 (1):3–10.
    1. Tricco AC, Strauss S, Moher D. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [internet] University of Oxford, London: Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS; 2015 [cited 2021 Aug 20]. Available from: http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guide-lines-under-devel... .

LinkOut - more resources