PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation.

Tricco AC1, Lillie E2, Zarin W2, O'Brien KK3, Colquhoun H3, Levac D4, Moher D5, Peters MDJ6, Horsley T7, Weeks L8, Hempel S9, Akl EA10, Chang C11, McGowan J12, Stewart L13, Hartling L14, Aldcroft A15, Wilson MG16, Garritty C5, Lewin S17, Godfrey CM18, Macdonald MT19, Langlois EV20, Soares-Weiser K21, Moriarty J22, Clifford T8, Tunçalp Ö20, Straus SE1.

Author information

1: St. Michael's Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.C.T., S.E.S.).
2: St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (E.L., W.Z.).
3: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (K.K.O., H.C.).
4: Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts (D.L.).
5: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (D.M., C.G.).
6: University of South Australia and University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia (M.D.P.).
7: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (T.H.).
8: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (L.W., T.C.).
9: RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California (S.H.).
10: American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon (E.A.A.).
11: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland (C.C.).
12: University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (J.M.).
13: University of York, York, United Kingdom (L.S.).
14: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (L.H.).
15: BMJ Open, London, United Kingdom (A.A.).
16: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (M.G.W.).
17: Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway, and South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa (S.L.).
18: Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada (C.M.G.).
19: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (M.T.M.).
20: World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (E.V.L., Ö.T.).
21: Cochrane, London, United Kingdom (K.S.).
22: King's College London, London, United Kingdom (J.M.).

Abstract

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.