Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 12, 2026

The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score (PRIUS): A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review
Andrea C Tricco1, Emily Robinson2, Sharon E Straus3
1Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Epidemiology Division & Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Background And Objectives:
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews (ScRs) (PRISMA-ScR) was published in 2018 to provide reporting guidance. A substantial increase in published ScRs in recent years coupled with the omission or lack of engagement of interest-holders, including patients and public partners, as research partners throughout its development necessitate updating PRISMA-ScR. Important methodological advancements have emerged since PRISMA-ScR 2018, including automation and data extraction, which need to be incorporated into this update and reflected in new reporting items. Aligned with PRISMA 2020, this ScR underpins the update by identifying potential new reporting items for consideration from recent studies related to reporting guidance and the evaluation of reporting completeness in ScRs.
Methods:
The protocol for this review was published and registered with the Open Science Framework and in a peer-reviewed journal. We conducted database searches in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Methodology Register and gray literature searches guided by the Canada's Drug Agency Gray Matters tool. Retrieved sources were screened in duplicate to assess eligibility. Included studies underwent data extraction with one extractor and one verifier. We summarized results and proposed additional PRISMA-ScR reporting items.
Results:
Of the 8265 records screened, 43 unique documents (13 overviews of ScRs and 30 guidance documents) were included and extracted. Thirty-seven potential reporting items for ScRs were identified; these will be evaluated in a subsequent Delphi survey to inform the PRISMA-ScR update. The most common additional items were related to objectives (67.4%), eligibility criteria (62.8%), search strategy (51.2%), data collection process (53.5%), and results of synthesis (51.2%). Newly identified items included reporting the inclusion criteria using a suitable framework (e.g., Population, Concept, and Context), reporting protocol deviations in the final ScR, and visually presenting results along with relevant text to support the visuals.
Conclusion:
This ScR highlights gaps in existing PRISMA-ScR reporting guidance and provides additional reporting items for consideration and potential inclusion in an updated guideline. When aligned with the latest methodological advancements and involving interest-holders, including patients and public partners, the updated guideline will enhance the transparency and robustness of ScRs.
Plain Language Summary:
The goal of this project is to update the reporting guideline for ScRs. The reporting guideline is called PRISMA-ScR. ScRs collect and summarize information from many studies addressing a broad research question. They are useful because they help researchers see what is already known. They also find gaps in knowledge and inform what research should be conducted next. ScRs also help health-care workers, leaders, and policy makers make informed decisions. PRISMA-ScR is a guide to help researchers clearly explain the methods they used to conduct their ScR. Clear reporting of the methods used is important so readers can judge the quality of the review and know if they can be confident in the results. It allows other researchers to repeat the study to check if the results are reliable. Health professionals also use the information to guide patient care and healthcare planning. An update to PRISMA-ScR is needed for several reasons. 1. ScRs are not always reported in a clear or consistent way. This can make them hard to understand or use. 2. The original guideline from 2018 did not include patients or public partners. In this project, patients and public partners are involved throughout the entire process. Their experiences and perspectives help make the guideline more useful and relevant. 3. New methods for doing ScRs have been developed since 2018. The guideline needs to reflect these changes. To support the guidance update, researchers looked at current guidelines. They also completed a new ScR. They found 47 research papers that suggested 37 new reporting items. These items suggest there may be gaps in the existing guidelines. As a result, the new reporting items will be considered as part of the PRISMA-ScR update.
Related Concept Videos
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies.
Guidelines for Writing Outcome
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care evaluation by...
Pharmacovigilance
This process, termed pharmacovigilance, aims to detect, evaluate, and minimize harmful effects related to medication use. The data collection for pharmacovigilance depends on spontaneous reporting systems, where healthcare professionals or patients voluntarily report suspected ADRs.
In some cases, there...
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
SBAR II: Application of SBAR
SBAR Report from a Nurse to a Health Care Provider
S: "Hello, Dr. Smith. This is Jane, RN, from the Med Surg unit. I am calling to tell you about Ms. White in Room 210, who is experiencing increased pain and redness at her incision site. Her recent...
