Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.


Evidence-based healthcare is an expanding field. Together with the continual increase in the availability of primary research, the conduct of reviews has also increased and evolved. Different forms of evidence and different review objectives and questions have led to the development of new approaches that are designed to more effectively and rigorously synthesize the evidence. In 2009, Grant and Booth identified 14 different types of reviews (Grant & Booth 2009), whilst in 2016 Tricco and colleagues identified 25 knowledge synthesis methods (Tricco et al. 2016c). Scoping reviews, which have also been called “mapping reviews” or “scoping studies” are one type of review (Ehrich et al. 2002; Anderson et al. 2008). Arksey and O’Malley proposed an original framework for conducting scoping reviews (Arksey & O’Malley 2005). This framework was then advanced and extended by Levac and colleagues (2010). Scoping review methodology was then further refined, and corresponding guidance developed by a working group from JBI and the JBI Collaboration (JBIC) (Peters et al. 2015, 2017). The guidance from this group explicitly addressed the need for this type of knowledge synthesis to be rigorously conducted, transparent and trustworthy. Peters et al. (2015, 2017) used the label ‘systematic scoping review’ in their original guidance for conduct and reporting of these types of reviews (Peters et al. 2015, 2017). In this current update, the nomenclature has been refined to simply ‘scoping reviews’ in acknowledgement that all types of knowledge synthesis should be systematic in their conduct, and that this is the most common term used for these types of reviews (Tricco et al. 2016b). In 2018, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) Statement was extended to Scoping Reviews – the PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al. 2018). The PRISMA-ScR was developed by a number of experts in scoping reviews and evidence synthesis, including members of the JBI/JBC JBIC working group, to be consistent with the JBI scoping review methodology (Peters et al. 2017). Following the PRISMA-ScR and meetings of the scoping review methodology group, an updated version of the JBI scoping review methodology is now available.