An Assessment of Scoping Review Reporting within Paramedicine: A Scoping Review

B. Williams, Bronwyn Beovich
{"title":"An Assessment of Scoping Review Reporting within Paramedicine: A Scoping Review","authors":"B. Williams, Bronwyn Beovich","doi":"10.33151/ajp.17.834","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim This study aimed to examine the quality of published paramedic scoping reviews against pre-existing frameworks to assess the extent to which they fulfil the requirements of this methodological approach. Subsequently, recommendations will be presented regarding improvements for future paramedic scoping reviews. Methods A scoping review was conducted guided by the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. A literature search was performed in six electronic databases as well as the grey literature to identify previous scoping reviews that focussed on paramedic or emergency medical service personnel. Relevant data were extracted from included articles and presented in narrative and tabular formats. Results The literature search initially identified 475 articles, of which 20 remained after title/abstract and full-text screening. There was a general increase in the number of studies published over time, the majority of articles (80%) had conducted their scoping review utilising published frameworks, and 75% of first authors were paramedics. Although many areas of these reports comply with published guidelines, there was an overall lack of consistency in the specific information included, the level of detail of that information, and the location of information within the reports. Conclusion All paramedic scoping studies should be reported with the use of a published framework to enable standardisation in the reporting, thus facilitating understanding, reproducibility, and utility. The PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews provides a checklist and thorough explanations of each step in the reporting process and is recommended for use with all future paramedic scoping reviews.","PeriodicalId":340334,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Paramedicine","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Paramedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.17.834","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Aim This study aimed to examine the quality of published paramedic scoping reviews against pre-existing frameworks to assess the extent to which they fulfil the requirements of this methodological approach. Subsequently, recommendations will be presented regarding improvements for future paramedic scoping reviews. Methods A scoping review was conducted guided by the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. A literature search was performed in six electronic databases as well as the grey literature to identify previous scoping reviews that focussed on paramedic or emergency medical service personnel. Relevant data were extracted from included articles and presented in narrative and tabular formats. Results The literature search initially identified 475 articles, of which 20 remained after title/abstract and full-text screening. There was a general increase in the number of studies published over time, the majority of articles (80%) had conducted their scoping review utilising published frameworks, and 75% of first authors were paramedics. Although many areas of these reports comply with published guidelines, there was an overall lack of consistency in the specific information included, the level of detail of that information, and the location of information within the reports. Conclusion All paramedic scoping studies should be reported with the use of a published framework to enable standardisation in the reporting, thus facilitating understanding, reproducibility, and utility. The PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews provides a checklist and thorough explanations of each step in the reporting process and is recommended for use with all future paramedic scoping reviews.
辅助医学范围审查报告的评估:范围审查
目的:本研究旨在检查已发表的针对现有框架的护理人员范围审查的质量,以评估它们在多大程度上满足这种方法学方法的要求。随后,将提出关于改进未来护理人员范围审查的建议。方法采用PRISMA范围审查扩展指南进行范围审查。在六个电子数据库以及灰色文献中进行了文献检索,以确定以前侧重于护理人员或紧急医疗服务人员的范围审查。从纳入的文章中提取相关数据,并以叙述和表格形式呈现。结果文献检索最初确定了475篇文章,其中20篇经过标题/摘要和全文筛选。随着时间的推移,发表的研究数量普遍增加,大多数文章(80%)利用已发表的框架进行了范围审查,75%的第一作者是护理人员。虽然这些报告的许多方面符合已公布的准则,但在所包括的具体信息、这些信息的详细程度以及这些信息在报告中的位置方面总体上缺乏一致性。结论:所有护理人员的范围界定研究都应使用已发布的框架进行报告,以实现报告的标准化,从而促进理解、可重复性和实用性。范围审查的PRISMA扩展提供了报告过程中每个步骤的清单和详细解释,建议在所有未来的护理人员范围审查中使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信