Characteristics, methodological, and reporting quality of scoping reviews published in nursing journals: A systematic review.

Introduction: Given the diversity of the scope for inquiry and methodologies used in nursing research, the synthesis of primary research may not be as straightforward as conducting a meta-analysis or systematic review on clinical trials. Scoping reviews offer an option to nursing academics for inquiries involving a range of applications and interpretations. Given the continual advances in evidence-based research, it is, therefore, crucial for nursing to constantly substantiate its research capabilities and uphold standards in its research inquiry. Accordingly, an updated overview would be timely to characterize scoping reviews in the nursing literature. Hence this review aimed to examine the characteristics of scoping reviews published in nursing journals and evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of the scoping reviews.

Design: A systematic review.

Methods: A comprehensive search of three electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase) were conducted. Scoping reviews published in English on or before December 31, 2020 were included, with the criterion that their publication had been in nursing journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports (2020 Science Edition) of the Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts for eligibility. A standardized data extraction form was used for data collection, and a 29-item checklist was developed to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the scoping reviews. The methodological and reporting quality was assessed independently by four reviewers and subsequently counter-checked by another two reviewers. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the included papers, and narrative synthesis was undertaken to explain the results.

Results: This review included 422 papers from 88 nursing journals. They were published between 2008 and 2021 (median year 2019). Only 15 (3.5%) reviews reported accessible protocols, and 63 (15.0%) presented data on their critical appraisal of the included sources of evidence. Poor reporting of the selection of sources of evidence and data extraction was also identified. Overall, the 422 included reviews had complied with 20 (median [range: 9-27]) of the 29 items on the checklist.

Conclusions: Scoping reviews have garnered wider acceptance in nursing research, of which the scopes and methodologies exhibit much diversity. Our systematic review has provided insights into existing scoping reviews published in nursing journals through our characterization of them and appraisal of their methodological and reporting quality. However, our findings underline several areas needing improvement: the lack of transparency, the absence of critical appraisal, non-compliance to established checklists, and inconsistencies in the data processing.

Clinical Relevance: Appraising included sources of evidence and maintaining transparency in the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews increases the practical utility of scoping reviews.