Objective:
The objective of this scoping review is to identify and report upon evidence (such as guidance) or tools regarding methodological quality or risk of bias of scoping reviews.
Introduction:
Scoping reviews have gained popularity in recent years but have been criticized for variations in their approaches. This scoping review will examine evidence on the methodological quality of scoping reviews, as well as identify and describe potential tools to inform the development of a tool for appraising the quality of scoping reviews.
Inclusion criteria:
The scoping review will include all documents reporting on the development, evaluation, or conduct of tools addressing the critical appraisal or risk of bias of scoping reviews. The literature search will seek evidence published from 2005 onwards, corresponding with the publication of Arksey and O’Malley’s framework for scoping reviews.
Methods:
The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished documents utilizing a three-step search strategy. An initial search of PubMed has identified keyword and MeSH terms. A second search of PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL will follow. Google and Google Scholar will be searched for difficult-to-locate and unpublished literature. Authors will endeavor to consult with relevant methodologists through the authors’ professional networks, social media accounts, and professional newsletters to obtain materials that can be considered for inclusion. Documents will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by two researchers and the data will be presented in tables.
Correspondence: Danielle Pollock, Danielle.Pollock@adelaide.edu.au
All authors included in this protocol are members of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology group and have published the JBI guidance for scoping reviews. ACT is a member of the JBI Evidence Synthesis Editorial Advisory Board. DP and ZM are paid members of JBI, Adelaide.
© 2021 JBI