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
. 2024 Apr 24:14:100448.
doi: 10.1016/j.rcsop.2024.100448. eCollection 2024 Jun.

Considerations for conducting a scoping review in pharmacy education

Cherie Lucas  1 , Shane P Desselle  2
Affiliations

Considerations for conducting a scoping review in pharmacy education

Cherie Lucas et al. Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm. .

Abstract

Interrogating the literature is among the first steps a researcher undertakes when actuating a research project or also when any scholar might seek to know what has been done in an area, best practices for conducting a certain activity, or simply to seek answers for a question ranging from one's own personal curiosity to those that might affect departmental or institutional guidance. Decisions on the type of review process to undertake is one that is not taken lightly. This methods commentary outlines the reasons for conducting a scoping review versus a systematic review for topics related to pharmacy education. Considerations for conducting the scoping review are outlined including considerations for writing a protocol prior to conducting a scoping review, to potential platforms to use for transparency of sharing data, processes related to guidelines for data extraction and types of search strategies utilized.

Keywords: Literature review; Methods paper; Scoping review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The author is an Editorial Board Member/Editor-in-Chief/Associate Editor/Guest Editor for [Journal name] and was not involved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article. The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: As mentioned above, I am an Associate Editor for ERCSP and lead author on this methodology paper. Shane is the Editor for ERCSP and is the second author for this paper. This paper will go out for review as does every paper. I have no financial competing interests for this paper and the work conducted.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. EPPI Centre Evidence for Policy and Practice History of systematic reviews. 23 Feb 2023. https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Resources/EvidenceInformedPolicyandPractice/H... Accessed 8 March 2024.
    1. Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.
    1. Tricco A.C., Lillie E., Zarin W., et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(15):15. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K.K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Khalil H., Peters M.D.J., Tricco A.C., et al. Conducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;130:156–160. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources