See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/372412818

How to Write a Scoping Review Protocol: Guidance and Template

Preprint · July 2023

CITATIONS READS
0 14,259

7 authors, including:

Justine Lely Jordan Wickstrom

National Institutes of Health ABBEL Research Division; Sinai Rehabilitation Center; Sinai Hospital
8 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS 25 PUBLICATIONS 232 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jordan Wickstrom on 17 July 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 How to Write a Scoping Review Protocol: Guidance and Template
Justine Lely,1a Hailey C. Morris,1a Noa Sasson,a Nathan D. Camarillo,a
Alicia A. Livinski,b Gisela Butera,b Jordan Wickstroma,c
a
Rehabilitation Medicine Department, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
b
NIH Library, Office of Research Services, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
c
Sinai Rehabilitation Center, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA

GUIDANCE
Introduction and Purpose
A scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of a particular topic by synthesizing the
breadth of evidence currently available. It has become an increasingly common approach to
summarize the literature since its inception in 2005, and detailed approaches have since been
developed to provide methodological and reporting guidance. Scoping reviews are intended to
provide readers with key concepts and definitions, important insights regarding the topic of
interest, knowledge gaps in the field, and a summary of how research has been conducted. They
may serve as a precursor to systematic reviews conducted on larger, more homogeneous bodies
of evidence, which often include more specific research questions, methodological appraisals,
risk of bias assessments, and meta-analyses.
This Scoping Review Protocol Guidance is intended to serve as an educational tool for those
developing or reviewing scoping review protocols including novice, intermediate, and
experienced researchers and clinicians. This document provides information for each core
protocol component (see color-coded headings) consisting of overarching goals, core
requirements, helpful tips, and published protocol examples. Please note these examples may not
include all recommendations provided herein. When writing your protocol, this guidance is
intended to be used in tandem with the Scoping Review Protocol Template, which includes
headings and subheadings to insert relevant protocol information. Please refer to our
bibliography for the list of resources used to create these documents.
Registering and/or Publishing Your Scoping Review Protocol
It is highly recommended to make your protocol publicly available by either registering it on
Open Science Framework or publishing it in a journal before completing your review, ideally
after piloting your methods. Please be aware that you will need to make additional formatting
and style changes to conform to the requirements of your desired submission source. For
example, a journal may have word count limits, specific citation styles, and/or organization
requirements for a protocol submission.
Overall Tip! Write your protocol in future tense (e.g., “We will search...”, “We will screen...”)
since you are documenting what you plan to do for your scoping review.

TITLE
Overarching Goal: Create a clear, informative, and representative title to identify the document
as a protocol of a scoping review. Keep in mind this is the first content readers see to determine
applicability of the protocol to their interests or needs.

1
Justine Lely and Hailey C. Morris should be considered joint first authors
1
Requirements:
• Include the words ‘‘scoping review protocol’’
o Alternatively, if the protocol is an update of a previous review, include the words
“updated scoping review protocol”
• Include relevant key words that:
o Relate to the topic under review
o Align with the key elements of your question (e.g., population, intervention/
exposure, outcomes)
o Are recognizable and used by prospective readers
• Use proper and inclusive terminology and respectful word choice
• Avoid phrasing the title as a question
• Avoid using acronyms or abbreviations in the title
Helpful Tips:
• Consider including key words stated in your inclusion criteria
• Ensure there is congruency between your title, review question(s), and inclusion criteria
• Consider including information about time frame, setting, and study design
Examples:
• Chen et al. (2017)
• Guldager et al. (2022)
• Shakya et al. (2023)

AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS
Requirements:
• Provide the following information for each author:
o Name
o Institutional affiliation
o Email address with long-term access (corresponding author only)
o Physical mailing address (corresponding author only)

ABSTRACT
Overarching Goal: Give a structured summary of the scoping review protocol that includes your
background information supporting the need for the review, objective(s), search information,
screening and data charting methods, results, and conclusions. Be mindful that readers often rely
on abstracts to determine if a protocol is of interest to them.
Requirements (by subsection, *as applicable):
• Introduction
o Provide a brief overview of the topic
o Describe the rationale for the review given existing literature (2–3 sentences)
o Explicitly state the objective; incorporate key features of the inclusion criteria
(1–2 sentences)
• Methods and Analysis (see our Methods section for details related to each bullet)
o State the methodological guidelines you will use to conduct the review
▪ Examples: Arksey & O’Malley (2005); JBI Manual for Evidence
Synthesis (2020); Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien (2010)

2
 o List the key information regarding your search strategy, including:
▪ Names of search sources (e.g., electronic databases, gray literature,
reference lists of included studies and review papers)
▪ Any search limits to be used (minimum: date range and publication
language; if word count allows: species, age range, study design,
publication type, etc.)
o Report piloting and official procedures to be employed for title and abstract
screening, full-text screening, and data charting/extraction
o State the number of team members that will participate in each stage of screening
and extraction, and whether screening and extracting will be done independently
o Briefly describe your intended approach to data extraction and analysis
o If critical appraisal will be performed, briefly describe process and tool to be used
▪ Examples: AMSTAR 2; Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized
Trials - Version 2 (RoB 2); JBI Revised Critical Appraisal Tools
• Ethics and Dissemination
o State whether ethics approval is required for the scoping review
o Briefly describe how findings of the scoping review will be disseminated
▪ Examples: Peer-reviewed journals, scientific conferences
o Mention any relevant stakeholders
• Key Words or Phrases
o List key words or phrases in alphabetical order (maximum: 5)
*Note: The subsections and requirements of the abstract may change based on submission source
requirements; default to rules listed in the author/submission guidelines.
Helpful Tips:
• Provide any funding sources and registration numbers
• Consider using key words or phrases not already mentioned in your title and abstract, as
this will maximize the likelihood of your protocol appearing in searches related to your
topic
• We encourage using the PRISMA abstract template when possible
Examples:
• Madombwe & Dlungwane (2021)
• Parola et al. (2020)

INTRODUCTION
Overarching Goal: Provide background information on the topic of interest as well as rationale
for conducting a scoping review. Refer to and cite primary sources related to the research
question while identifying gaps in the literature. Operationally define important terms, and
explicitly state the objective(s) to conclude the section.
Background and Rationale
Requirements:
• Provide rationale for why a scoping review should be conducted given what is already
known on the topic
o Begin with a brief overview of the topic
o Describe what is already known in the field, citing key references

3
 o Detail the problem that has led to the need for this review—identify gaps in the
literature that need to be addressed
o Provide operational definitions for relevant terms, citing pertinent references
o Describe any theoretical frameworks used to define terms
o Introduce the scope of the research question
o Define and explain why any boundaries exist given the research question(s)
and/or selected methodology (this will help clarify the boundaries applied to the
scope of the search)
o Include information that supports and/or justifies the inclusion criteria
• Provide an explanation for why a scoping review (versus other type of review) is justified
o Demonstrate your understanding of what a scoping review can and cannot do
o Specify why it is the appropriate method of inquiry for your question(s) of interest
• Provide details regarding existing reviews
o Describe and cite all relevant reviews (scoping, systematic) that relate to the topic
o Specify how the present scoping review will differ from other reviews
o Demonstrate your understanding behind the use, value, and limitations of
conducting a scoping review by stating a rationale for why a scoping review
(versus a different review type) is the appropriate approach
Helpful Tips:
• A detailed review on what is already known in the field is typically not required;
prioritize summarizing information from key references
• When providing details of existing reviews, address strengths and shortcomings of
previous publications, acknowledge any questions that remain, and outline the ways in
which the scoping review will address such questions
• Highlight the ways in which the scoping review will advance the field
• Focus on the why, not just the what; explain the reasoning behind selecting your
questions of interest, methodology, and objectives
Examples:
• Chan et al. (2021) – see section “Introduction”
• Kumar et al. (2022) – see section “Background”
• Najor et al. (2021) – see section “Background”
Objective
Requirements:
• At the end of the introduction, clearly state your primary and secondary (if applicable)
research questions; secondary questions should directly relate to your primary question,
and they are often more specific
o Ensure each question includes your population, intervention/exposure, and
outcomes of interest (note: these should also appear in your inclusion criteria)
• The words “scoping review” should be explicitly stated here when referring to the review
Helpful Tips:
• Pose your questions such that readers can infer what information will be extracted and
how the results will be reported
• Use a question framework to help with creating and writing the research question
o Examples: ECLIPSE–Expectation/Clients/Location/Impact/Professionals/Service;
PCC–Population/Concept/Context; PICO–Population/Intervention/Comparison/
Outcome)

4
 • As the most integral part of your review, objectives should be detailed enough for readers
to clearly understand what information will be included and why
• To make this component of the protocol stand out, consider:
o Using phrases such as, “the objective(s) of this scoping review is/are...”, “the
purpose of this scoping review is...”, or “the aim(s) of this scoping review
is/are...”
o Formatting this subsection in a unique way, such as by using bullet points
Examples:
• Bégin et al. (2021) – see last paragraph of section “Introduction”; see section “Review
Questions”
• Rofé et al. (2022) – see section “Review Questions”
• Town et al. (2021) – see 7th and 9th paragraphs of section “Introduction”; see section
“Review Questions”

METHODS
Overarching Goal: Present a comprehensive plan for how the scoping review will be conducted
to answer the research question(s) in accordance with the methodological framework. Report the
proposed eligibility criteria, information sources and search strategy, data charting process,
results synthesis and dissemination. Developing and implementing the plans for each review is
an iterative process, so document any methodological changes that occur throughout the review
process (i.e., update the protocol as the project advances).
[Opening Paragraph]
Requirements:
• Cite which methodology the scoping review will follow
o Examples: Arksey & O’Malley (2005); JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis
(2020); Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien (2010)
• Cite the guidelines/recommendations used for writing the scoping review protocol
o Examples: PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews; JBI Scoping Review
Template; Lely et al. (2023) – How to Write a Scoping Review Protocol:
Guidance and Template
• Cite the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews as the reporting guideline to be used
for writing the final scoping review manuscript
Helpful Tips:
• If the protocol is registered, provide the name of the registry and the corresponding
registration number and/or URL to the protocol record
• If the PRISMA-ScR Protocol Template was used, complete the PRISMA Protocol
Checklist, upload it as a supplemental file, and include the proper citation
Examples:
• Cavalcante et al. (2022) – see section “Study Design and Registration”
• Chan et al. (2021) – see 1st paragraph of section “Method and Analysis”
Eligibility Criteria
Requirements:
• Outline the eligibility criteria for the scoping review; these criteria are associated with the
research question(s) and objective(s), and inform readers which articles will be included

5
 or excluded. Evidence source(s) should also be defined to describe relevant study designs
and publication types. Providing this information will help highlight and refine key
characteristics that guide and/or support the research question(s)
o Clients/Participants/Population (if applicable)
▪ Include detailed characteristics about the population (e.g., age, sex,
diagnosis, role/grouping, race, ethnicity) that are relevant to the research
question(s)
▪ Describe any confounding population factors (e.g., comorbidities)
o Concepts/Exposures/Interventions/Treatments
▪ Outline the key issues or topics to be addressed (e.g., definitions,
theoretical framework, methods, and study design)
▪ Include detailed information about any interventions (e.g., medication,
exercise program) or phenomena of interest (e.g., care models used to
manage disease, attendance at education sessions)
o Context/Setting
▪ Describe details about the study location (e.g., physical or geographical
space, cultural or social context)
o Outcomes
▪ Include details about outcomes related to the assessment tools,
experiences, perspectives, interventions, or therapies
o Types of Evidence Sources
▪ Outline the specific evidence sources to be included or excluded
(e.g., primary or secondary sources, types of reviews, pilot studies, meta-
analyses, clinical trials, dissertations, conference abstracts/proceedings,
protocols, letters to the editor, gray literature)
• Provide rationale for why you selected each eligibility criterion
• Outline any restrictions used as eligibility criteria (e.g., publication year, publication
language) and provide rationale for each
• Include plans for how to handle ambiguous situations that may arise
o Example: during title and abstract screening, records that do not contain an
abstract (title only) will automatically pass on to full-text screening
• Ensure all team members have a shared understanding and interpretation of the eligibility
criteria to ensure consistency in its application during screening
o Conducting multiple pilots at each stage of screening (title and abstract, full-text)
will help ensure consistent understanding and application
o Once official screening commences, pay attention to the number of voting
discrepancies/conflicts that arise to determine if more revisions to the criteria or
additional pilots are needed before proceeding
▪ Note: Covidence tracks inter-rater reliability for both stages of screening,
so you could consider setting a cut-off percentage of agreement
• Know that the process of developing your criteria will be iterative and largely informed
by your preliminary literature searches (e.g., relevant reviews, papers related to the
desired topic) as well as by titles/abstracts/full texts of articles that you would expect to
include in your scoping review
Helpful Tips:
• When developing your criteria, spend time reviewing criteria used in other reviews on
similar topics

6
 • Avoid repeating or overlapping information within the eligibility criteria; make sure each
criterion is distinct from one another
• Information about what details should be included/excluded is more important than how
they are reported in relevant sources
• In some cases, it may not be useful to specify the types of publications that you will
include (e.g., only including primary research but excluding grey literature) to prevent the
protocol from imposing limits on sources that could potentially be used for the review
• If an important criterion is not likely to appear in the title or abstract (e.g., race/ethnicity,
sex/gender, specific diagnostic tests used), consider applying that criterion only at full-
text screening and not during title and abstract screening
Examples:
• Chu et al. (2022) – see 1st paragraph of section “Step 3: Study Selection”; see Table 3
• Li et al. (2020) – see Textbox 1
• Yang et al. (2022) – see Table 1
Information Sources and Search Strategy
Requirements:
• Specify who will develop the search strategy (e.g., biomedical librarian), and how the
individual(s) will communicate with the review team
• List ALL sources to be searched, including:
o Databases [vendors] (e.g., PubMed [US National Library of Medicine])
o Gray literature (e.g., websites, preprints, clinical trial records, conference
abstracts/proceedings, dissertations, government and/or professional organization
reports, white papers)
o Reference lists from related review papers
o Reference lists from included papers (papers that pass full-text screening)
• State whether the process of reference snowballing (i.e., forward and
backward searches) will be used
• Include the following for each source:
o Dates the search will be conducted
o Limits or filters to be applied; include justification
o Controlled vocabulary terms (e.g., MeSH, EMTREE, CINAHL Subject Headings)
and keywords to be used for the main concepts of your research question(s)
• List the software name and version [company name, headquarters location] that will be
used for citation management, including duplicate record removal
• Examples: EndNote 20 [Clarivate, Philadelphia, PA, USA, London, UK];
Covidence [Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia]
• Report the full search strategy for at least one database (recommended: PubMed); you
may need to include as a supplemental file depending on where you publish/submit
• Report whether the search strategy will be peer-reviewed using the Peer Review of
Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) checklist
Helpful Tips:
• Include an experienced librarian to determine which sources should be used to develop
the search strategies and conduct the literature searches
• Preliminary searches should be performed to help shape the final search strategy and
inform the eligibility criteria

7
 • Expect the search strategy development to be an iterative process that will involve
continued consultation with relevant experts to select the most appropriate keywords and
controlled vocabulary terms
Examples:
• Chu et al. (2022) – see section “Step 2: Identifying Relevant Studies”
• MacPherson et al. (2020) – see section “Identifying Relevant Studies”
• Rofé et al. (2022) – see section “Search Strategy”; see Appendix 1
• Soobiah et al. (2020) – see section “Information Sources”
Study Selection/Screening
Requirements:
• State that the eligibility criteria will be used for screening articles for inclusion
• Describe in detail how study selection will be conducted for (1) title and abstract
screening and (2) full-text screening, including the following information for each phase:
o Description of anticipated pilot process:
▪ Number of pilot rounds
▪ Number of records used in each round
▪ How and by whom the records will be selected
▪ Who will participate in the pilot screening
▪ If a cut-off percentage of agreement will be required to pass the pilot stage
(Note: Covidence calculates inter-rater reliability during screening)
▪ Process/forum for discussing discrepancies and updating criteria
o The number of members that will carry out official screening (minimum
requirement = 2 independent reviewers per record)
o The process for and who will be involved in resolving voting discrepancies
▪ Examples: You might resolve them by a third-party vote or through
discussion with the original 2 screeners until consensus is reached
o List the software name and version [company name, headquarters location] that
will be used for each stage of screening
▪ Examples: Covidence [Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia];
Microsoft Excel [Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA]
Helpful Tips:
• It is likely that some aspects of the planned study selection process will be altered given
the broad nature of scoping reviews; be transparent by stating that the search and/or
eligibility criteria may be modified during the review process
o If you do make changes to your eligibility criteria, search strategies, or methods,
you must keep a record of these changes, including the dates the changes are
implemented; consider updating your registered/published protocol accordingly
• Describe your intended screening schedule, such as the goal number of articles to screen
each week (e.g., 50 records each week per reviewer)
• Consider discussing screening discrepancies during weekly team meetings to improve
understanding of the project’s objectives as well as consistency in applying the eligibility
criteria
Examples:
• Chan et al. (2021) – see last paragraph of section “Stage 3: Study Selection”
• Li et al. (2020) – see section “Selecting Studies”
• Rofé et al. (2022) – see section “Study Selection”

8
 Data Charting/Collection/Extraction
Requirements:
• Describe who will develop the data charting form and the process by which it will be
finalized (e.g., seeking feedback from the team or experts in the field)
• Specify all data variables/elements to be collected
• Describe how the data extraction rules will be stored (e.g., documented in a codebook
separate from the protocol; detailed in the data extraction form itself)
• Describe the data collection plan as it relates to the review question(s) in a way that is
easy to understand, including:
o Description of anticipated pilot process:
▪ Number of pilot rounds
▪ Number of full-texts used in each round
▪ How and by whom the full-texts will be selected
▪ Who will participate in the pilot data extraction
▪ If a cut-off percentage of agreement will be required to pass the pilot stage
▪ Process/forum for discussing discrepancies and updating criteria
o The number of members that will carry out extraction (minimum requirement: 2
independent extractors)
o The process for and who will be involved in resolving extraction discrepancies
▪ Examples: You might resolve these by a third-party vote or through
discussion with the original 2 extractors until consensus is reached
o List the software name and version [company name, headquarters location] that
will be used for data extraction
▪ Examples: Covidence [Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia];
Qualtrics XM [Qualtrics, Provo, Utah, USA]
• State the rules for how missing or incomplete/unclear information will be handled
o One option is to code information accordingly (e.g., if data is missing, code as
“Not Reported”; if data is confusing, code as “Unclear”)
o Another option is to contact authors regarding missing or unclear information; if
this is the plan, provide a specific description of the process for contacting authors
(e.g., a maximum of 3 email attempts will be used to obtain data that is missing
from studies) and what will be done if this information cannot be obtained
• Describe how you will handle data extraction for cases in which there are multiple
articles published from the same single study (known as friend studies), including your
process for identifying and extracting data
• For more information on how and why this should be done, please refer to the
Cochrane Handbook (chapter 5) that recommends coding all friend studies as a
block
• Example: “For friend studies, we will extract data from the study with the longest
follow-up” or “For friend studies, the study with the largest number of
participants in the block will be used for data extraction”
• If you plan to conduct critical appraisal or risk of bias (not required for a scoping review),
state the number of team members that will conduct this step, the specific tools to be
used, and how discrepancies will be resolved
o State that you will conduct a pilot of this step including the same details as
specified above for the data extraction pilot

9
Helpful Tips:
• Peruse review papers related to your topic as well as Table 5.3.a from the Cochrane
Handbook to help identify what data items to collect
• Consider including a table that lists the variables/data elements you intend to extract to
help your readers visualize your data charting plan
• Describe your intended extraction and meeting schedule:
o Specify the goal number of articles to extract from each week (e.g., 20 records per
extractor); plan to start with a small number of records and gradually increase that
number as extractors become more comfortable with the process
o The senior authors should hold regular meetings (e.g., weekly) with those charting
data to identify any problems and unanimously answer questions that arise
Examples:
• Chen et al. (2017) – see section “Data Extraction”
• Rofé et al. (2022) – see section “Data Extraction”
Synthesis and Presentation of Results
Requirements:
• Describe intended plan for cleaning data; state how data will be cleaned and by whom
• List the software name and version [company name, headquarters location] that will be
used for data cleaning and analysis
o Examples: Microsoft Excel [Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA];
R version x [R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria]
• State that a PRISMA flow diagram will be used to graphically depict the flow of
information through the review process
• Describe how you will synthesize and present the relevant data in a clear and meaningful
way that addresses the objective(s) of the review, including:
o Your intended analyses, which are typically limited to descriptive statistics for
scoping reviews
o How you plan to present the results for each variable (e.g., tables, figures,
diagrams, maps)
• State that the plan for data synthesis and results presentation may be modified or further
refined once your team arrives at this stage by using language such as, “we expect that
our approach to synthesizing and presenting the results may change as we advance in the
review process”
• State whether any stakeholders (e.g., consultants or additional collaborators) will be
included to help synthesize results of the scoping review, and clearly describe their role
Helpful Tips:
• Data can be presented in an illustrative format (e.g., columns, graphs, tables) or a
descriptive format; plan to use whichever method allows you to best address the
objectives and questions posed in your scoping review
• Avoid performing analyses that go beyond the limits of a scoping review's specific
objectives; complicated analyses are not appropriate for scoping reviews
Examples:
• Li et al. (2020) – see section “Summarizing and Reporting the Results”
• Rasmussen, Håkonsen, & Toft (2021) – see section “Presentation of the Results”

10
 Ethics and Dissemination
Requirements:
• State whether ethics approval is required at your institution for the scoping review
• Specify knowledge users and additional collaborators to be involved in all stages of the
study (e.g., physicians, policymakers)
• Describe where (e.g., scientific conferences) and with whom (e.g., caregivers, patients)
study findings will be shared
• State the forum in which the results are intended to be published (e.g., peer-reviewed
journals)
Helpful Tips:
• Specifically mention the involvement/role that collaborators will have in the scoping
review (e.g., the pediatrician will provide expertise when interpreting scores from
developmental assessments)
o Collaborators could be used at various stages of the scoping review, including
providing expertise when developing the search strategy, performing the data
analysis, and/or interpreting the findings
• Even though it is not required to involve consultants in your scoping review, including
them may increase the overall strength of your review
Examples:
• Alarie et al. (2019) – see section “Ethical Considerations and Dissemination”
• Chan et al. (2021) – see section “Stage 6: Consultation”; see section “Ethics and
Dissemination”
• Soobiah et al. (2020) – see section “Ethics and Dissemination”; see section “Patient and
Public Involvement”

CONCLUSION
Overarching Goal: Summarize the aims of your scoping review and its contribution to the
literature.
Requirements:
• Restate the primary and secondary research questions
• Restate any gaps in the literature the scoping review intends to fill
• Restate how this scoping review will advance the field
Helpful Tips:
• For most scoping reviews, it will not be relevant to make recommendations for clinical
practice or policy (systematic reviews and meta-analyses are more appropriate for this)
• Focus on providing readers with a preliminary map of evidence without analyzing quality
or validity of the results
• Section should remain brief (3-4 sentences) in your protocol
Examples:
• Alarie et al. (2019) – see section “Discussion”
• Nelson et al. (2015) – see section “Conclusion”

11
 SUPPORT/FUNDING
Requirements:
• Provide all sources of financial support for the scoping review, including:
o Name and role of funder(s)
o Sponsoring institution(s)
o Funding number(s) and project title(s)

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Requirements:
• Disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may influence the objectivity of the work,
including financial relationships (e.g., employment, stock ownership or options, patents,
paid expert testimony) and institutional ties
• Submit proper supporting documents or statements with your publication, such as the
ICMJE Disclosure Form

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Requirements:
• Acknowledge non-author contributors in this section, listing their names and
contributions (e.g., “[name] critically reviewed the study protocol,” “[name] provided
scientific input and advice”)

REFERENCES
Requirements:
• Include a list of all references used in the protocol
o If you plan to submit the protocol to a journal, use the citation style required by
the journal to format in-text citations and bibliography (e.g., Chicago, Vancouver)
o If you are registering your protocol with OSF or another registry, select a
common citation style to use to format in-text citations and bibliography

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Elizabeth K. Rasch, PT, PhD and Kara Peterik, MPH for their
review and feedback on the Guidance and Template documents.

12
 References
1. Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [Internet]. [place
unknown]: JBI; 2020 [updated 2021 Oct 6; cited 2023 Apr 17]. Available from: https://jbi-
global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL.
2. Barker TH, Stone JC, Sears K, Klugar M, Leonardi-Bee J, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E, Munn
Z. Revising the JBI quantitative critical appraisal tools to improve their applicability: an
overview of methods and the development process. JBI Evid Synth [Internet]. 2023 Mar 1
[cited 2023 May 8];21(3):478-493. Available from:
https://journals.lww.com/jbisrir/Fulltext/2023/03000/Revising_the_JBI_quantitative_critical_
appraisal.4.aspx doi: 10.11124/JBIES-22-00125 PMID: 36121230.
3. Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Bastian H, Chalmers I, Gøtzsche PC,
Lasserson T, Tovey D; PRISMA for Abstracts Group. PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting
systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med [Internet]. 2013 [cited
2023 May 2];10(4):e1001419. Available from:
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419 doi:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419. Epub 2013 Apr 9. PMID: 23585737; PMCID:
PMC3621753.
4. Buus N, Nygaard L, Berring LL, Hybholt L, Kamionka SL, Rossen CB, Søndergaard R, Juel
A. Arksey and O'Malley's consultation exercise in scoping reviews: a critical review. J Adv
Nurs [Internet]. 2022 Aug [cited 2023 May 2];78(8):2304-2312. Available from:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jan.15265 doi: 10.1111/jan.15265. Epub
2022 Apr 22. PMID: 35451517; PMCID: PMC9545832.
5. Cochrane Training [Internet]. London (England): The Cochrane Collaboration; c2023.
Scoping reviews: what they are and how you can do them; [cited 2023 Apr 19]. Available
from: https://training.cochrane.org/resource/scoping-reviews-what-they-are-and-how-you-
can-do-them.
6. Gerstein Science Information Centre [Internet]. Toronto (ON): University of Toronto.
Knowledge syntheses: Systematic & Scoping Reviews, and other review types; [updated
2023 Apr 20; cited 2023 May 2]. Available from:
https://guides.library.utoronto.ca/c.php?g=713309&p=5087816.
7. Grudniewicz A, Nelson M, Kuluski K, Lui V, Cunningham HV, X Nie J, Colquhoun H,
Wodchis WP, Taylor S, Loganathan M, Upshur RE. Treatment goal setting for complex
patients: protocol for a scoping review. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2016 May 25 [cited 2023 May
2];6(5):e011869. Available from: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/5/e011869 doi:
10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011869 PMID: 27225653; PMCID: PMC4885433.
8. ICMJE Home [Internet]. [place unknown]: International Committee of Medical Journal
Editors; c2023. Disclosure of Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities, and
Conflicts of Interest; [updated 2022 May; cited 2023 Apr 19]. Available from:
https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/author-
responsibilities--conflicts-of-interest.html#two.
9. JBI [Internet]. Adelaide (AUS): Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of
Adelaide. Resources; [cited 2023 Apr 17]. Available from: https://jbi.global/scoping-review-
network/resources.
10. Knowledge Translation Program [Internet]. Toronto (ON): Knowledge Translation Program;
c2019. The PRISMA-ScR (PRISMA extension for scoping reviews); 2018 May 7 [cited 2023
Apr 19]. Available from: https://knowledgetranslation.net/portfolios/the-prisma-scr-prisma-
extension-for-scoping-reviews/.
11. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or
scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping
13
 review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol [Internet]. 2018 Nov 19 [cited 2023 May
2];18(1):143. Available from:
https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x doi:
10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x PMID: 30453902; PMCID: PMC6245623.
12. NYMC Medical Sciences Library [Internet]. Valhalla (NY): New York Medical College.
What is a Scoping Review; [cited 2023 Apr 19]. Available from:
https://guides.library.nymc.edu/c.php?g=937104&p=8836358.
13. Oravec N, Monnin C, Gregora A, Bjorklund B, Dave MG, Schultz ASH, Chudyk AM.
Protocol for a scoping review to map patient engagement in scoping reviews. Res Involv
Engagem [Internet]. 2022 Jun 20 [cited 2023 May 2];8(1):27. Available from:
https://researchinvolvement.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40900-022-00361-x doi:
10.1186/s40900-022-00361-x PMID: 35725640; PMCID: PMC9210720.
14. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L,
Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu
MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas
J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated
guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ [Internet]. 2021 Mar 29 [cited 2023 May
2];372:n71. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n71 doi:
10.1136/bmj.n71 PMID: 33782057; PMCID: PMC8005924.
15. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Khalil H, Larsen P, Marnie C, Pollock D, Tricco AC,
Munn Z. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review
protocols. JBI Evid Synth [Internet]. 2022 Apr 1 [cited 2023 May 2];20(4):953-968.
Available from:
https://journals.lww.com/jbisrir/Fulltext/2022/04000/Best_practice_guidance_and_reporting_
items_for_the.3.aspx doi: 10.11124/JBIES-21-00242 PMID: 35102103.
16. PRISMA [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): PRISMA; c2023. PRISMA for Scoping Reviews; [cited
2023 Apr 25]. Available from: http://www.prisma-
statement.org/Extensions/ScopingReviews.
17. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart
LA; PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis
protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ [Internet]. 2015 Jan 2 [cited
2023 May 2];350:g7647. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7647 doi:
10.1136/bmj.g7647. Erratum in: BMJ. 2016 Jul 21;354:i4086. PMID: 25555855.
18. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, Moher D, Tugwell P, Welch V,
Kristjansson E, Henry DA. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that
include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ
[Internet]. 2017 Sep 21 [cited 2023 May 8];358:j4008. Available from:
https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j4008 doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008 PMID: 28935701;
PMCID: PMC5833365.
19. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng HY,
Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, Emberson JR, Hernán MA, Hopewell S, Hróbjartsson A,
Junqueira DR, Jüni P, Kirkham JJ, Lasserson T, Li T, McAleenan A, Reeves BC, Shepperd
S, Shrier I, Stewart LA, Tilling K, White IR, Whiting PF, Higgins JPT. RoB 2: a revised tool
for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ [Internet]. 2019 Aug 28 [cited 2023 May
9];366:l4898. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l4898.long doi:
10.1136/bmj.l4898 PMID: 31462531.
20. Temple University Libraries [Internet]. Philadelphia (PA): Temple University Libraries.
Systematic Reviews & Other Review Types: What is a Scoping Review; [updated 2023 Apr

14
 27; cited 2023 May 2]. Available from:
https://guides.temple.edu/c.php?g=78618&p=4156607.
21. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, Levac D, Ng C, Sharpe
JP, Wilson K, Kenny M, Warren R, Wilson C, Stelfox HT, Straus SE. A scoping review on
the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol [Internet]. 2016 Feb
9 [cited 2023 May 2];16:15. Available from:
https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4 doi:
10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4 PMID: 26857112; PMCID: PMC4746911.
22. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ,
Horsley T, Weeks L, Hempel S, Akl EA, Chang C, McGowan J, Stewart L, Hartling L,
Aldcroft A, Wilson MG, Garritty C, Lewin S, Godfrey CM, Macdonald MT, Langlois EV,
Soares-Weiser K, Moriarty J, Clifford T, Tunçalp Ö, Straus SE. PRISMA extension for
scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med [Internet]. 2018
Oct 2 [cited 2023 May 2];169(7):467-473. Available from:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M18-0850 doi: 10.7326/M18-0850. Epub 2018 Sep
4. PMID: 30178033.
23. UNC-Chapel Hill Libraries [Internet]. Chapel Hill (NC): UNC University Libraries. Scoping
Reviews: Home; [updated 2023 Mar 30; cited 2023 Apr 19]. Available from:
https://guides.lib.unc.edu/scoping-reviews/.
24. University of South Australia [Internet]. Adelaide (AUS): The University. Overview of
scoping reviews; [updated 2023 Apr 30; cited 2023 May 2]. Available from:
https://guides.library.unisa.edu.au/ScopingReviews/ScopingReviewOverview.
25. USC Libraries [Internet]. Los Angeles (CA): University of Southern California; c2023.
Scoping Reviews; [updated 2023 Mar 7; cited 2023 Apr 19]. Available from:
https://libguides.usc.edu/c.php?g=1148445&p=9409527.

15

View publication stats