View in EDS PDF Full Text

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review.
Authors: Maggio, Lauren A., Larsen, Kelsey, Thomas, Aliki, Costello, Joseph A., Artino, Anthony R.
Source: Medical Education. Jun2021, Vol. 55 Issue 6, p689-700. 12p. 2 Charts.
Subjects: Publishing, Online information services, Authors, Research protocols, Systematic reviews, Serial publications, Bibliometrics, Stakeholder analysis, Quality assurance, Descriptive statistics, MEDLINE, Medical education, Evaluation
Abstract: Objectives: Over the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities. Method: The authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA‐ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review. Results: One hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA‐ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal. Conclusions: Scoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised. Over the last 20 years, the number of #MedEd reviews has grown >2600% (4200% for scoping reviews). To explore this growth, Maggio et al. conducted a scoping review of 101 scoping reviews across 14 journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 150293687
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Maggio%2C+Lauren+A%2E%22">Maggio, Lauren A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Larsen%2C+Kelsey%22">Larsen, Kelsey</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thomas%2C+Aliki%22">Thomas, Aliki</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Costello%2C+Joseph+A%2E%22">Costello, Joseph A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Artino%2C+Anthony+R%2E%22">Artino, Anthony R.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Medical+Education%22">Medical Education</searchLink>. Jun2021, Vol. 55 Issue 6, p689-700. 12p. 2 Charts.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Publishing%22">Publishing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Online+information+services%22">Online information services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Authors%22">Authors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+protocols%22">Research protocols</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Systematic+reviews%22">Systematic reviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Serial+publications%22">Serial publications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bibliometrics%22">Bibliometrics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stakeholder+analysis%22">Stakeholder analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Quality+assurance%22">Quality assurance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Descriptive+statistics%22">Descriptive statistics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22MEDLINE%22">MEDLINE</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+education%22">Medical education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation%22">Evaluation</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Objectives: Over the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities. Method: The authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA‐ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review. Results: One hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA‐ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal. Conclusions: Scoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised. Over the last 20 years, the number of #MedEd reviews has grown >2600% (4200% for scoping reviews). To explore this growth, Maggio et al. conducted a scoping review of 101 scoping reviews across 14 journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=150293687
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/medu.14431
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 689
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Publishing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Online information services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Authors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research protocols
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Systematic reviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Serial publications
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bibliometrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stakeholder analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Quality assurance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Descriptive statistics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: MEDLINE
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medical education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Maggio, Lauren A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Larsen, Kelsey
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thomas, Aliki
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Costello, Joseph A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Artino, Anthony R.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Text: Jun2021
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 03080110
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 55
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Medical Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1