Andrea C. Tricco, PhD, MSc; Erin Lillie, MSc; Wasifa Zarin, MPH; Kelly K. O'Brien, PhD, BScPT; Heather Colquhoun, PhD; Danielle Levac, PhD, MSc, BScPT; David Moher, PhD, MSc; Micah D.J. Peters, PhD, MA(Q); Tanya Horsley, PhD; Laura Weeks, PhD; Susanne Hempel, PhD; Elie A. Akl, MD, PhD, MPH; Christine Chang, MD, MPH; Jessie McGowan, PhD; Lesley Stewart, PhD, MSc; Lisa Hartling, PhD, MSc, BScPT; Adrian Aldcroft, BA(Hons), BEd; Michael G. Wilson, PhD; Chantelle Garritty, MSc; Simon Lewin, PhD; Christina M. Godfrey, PhD, RN; Marilyn T. Macdonald, PhD, MSN; Etienne V. Langlois, PhD; Karla Soares-Weiser, MD, PhD; Jo Moriarty, MA; Tammy Clifford, PhD, MSc; Özge Tunçalp, MD, PhD, MPH; Sharon E. Straus, MD, MSc
Note: Dr. Tricco affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.
Acknowledgment: The authors thank Susan Le for supporting the coordination of the project and formatting the manuscript; Anna Lambrinos and Dr. Mai Pham for participating in round 1 of scoring and attending the in-person meeting; Dr. Lisa O'Malley for participating in round 1 of scoring and the e-Delphi round 2 of scoring; Dr. Peter Griffiths and Dr. Charles Shey Wiysonge for participating in round 1 of scoring and providing feedback on Conceptboard; Dr. Jill Manthorpe and Dr. Mary Ann McColl for participating in round 1 of scoring; Assem M. Khamis for assisting with the identification of examples for the Explanation and Elaboration document; and Melissa Chen, Jessica Comilang, and Meghan Storey for providing administrative support for the in-person meeting.
Financial Support: By Knowledge Synthesis grant KRS 144046 from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Tricco is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. Dr. O'Brien was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research New Investigator Award. Dr. Straus is funded by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Translation.
Disclosures: Mr. Aldcroft reports that he is the editor of BMJ Open. Dr. Lewin reports that he is the joint coordinating editor for the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. Dr. Straus reports that she is an associate editor of ACP Journal Club. Authors not named here have disclosed no conflicts of interest. Disclosures can also be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M18-0850.
Reproducible Research Statement:Study protocol: Available at the EQUATOR and PRISMA Web sites (www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#55 and www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/InDevelopment.aspx). Statistical code: Not applicable. Data set: Available from Dr. Tricco (e-mail, email@example.com).
Corresponding Author: Andrea C. Tricco, PhD, MSc, Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada; e-mail, firstname.lastname@example.org.
Current Author Addresses: Drs. Tricco and Straus, Ms. Lillie, and Ms. Zarin: Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada.
Dr. O'Brien: Department of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1V7, Canada.
Dr. Colquhoun: Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1V7, Canada.
Dr. Levac: Department of Physical Therapy, Movement and Rehabilitation Science, Bouvé College of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115.
Dr. Moher and Ms. Garritty: Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada.
Dr. Peters: Rosemary Bryant AO Research Centre, Sansom Institute for Health Research, Division of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia.
Dr. Horsley: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, 774 Echo Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5N8, Canada.
Drs. Weeks and Clifford: CADTH (Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health), 865 Carling Avenue, Suite 600, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5S8, Canada.
Dr. Hempel: RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401.
Dr. Akl: Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Gefinor Center, Block B, 4th Floor, American University of Beirut, Riad El-Solh, Beirut, Lebanon.
Dr. Chang: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.
Dr. McGowan: Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Roger Guindon Hall, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8M5, Canada.
Dr. Stewart: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, United Kingdom.
Dr. Hartling: Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, 11405-87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 1C9, Canada.
Mr. Aldcroft: BMJ Open Editorial Office, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JR, United Kingdom.
Dr. Wilson: Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada.
Dr. Lewin: Norwegian Institute of Public Health, PO Box 4404 Nydalen, N-0403 Oslo, Norway.
Dr. Godfrey: Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Queen's University School of Nursing, 992 University Avenue, Barrie Street, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada.
Dr. Macdonald: School of Nursing, Dalhousie University, PO Box 15000, 5869 University Avenue, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4R2, Canada.
Dr. Langlois: Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland.
Dr. Soares-Weiser: Cochrane Editorial Unit, Cochrane, St. Albans House, 57-59 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4QX, United Kingdom.
Ms. Moriarty: Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom.
Dr. Tunçalp: Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland.
Author Contributions: Conception and design: A.C. Tricco, W. Zarin, K.K. O'Brien, D. Moher, M.D.J. Peters, L. Stewart, S.E. Straus.
Analysis and interpretation of the data: A.C. Tricco, E. Lillie, W. Zarin, K.K. O'Brien, H. Colquhoun, D. Moher, M.D.J. Peters, T. Horsley, S. Hempel, E.A. Akl, C. Chang, J. McGowan, L. Stewart, L. Hartling, A. Aldcroft, M.G. Wilson, C. Garritty, S. Lewin, C.M. Godfrey, M.T. Macdonald, K. Soares-Weiser, Ö. Tunçalp, S.E. Straus.
Drafting of the article: A.C. Tricco, E. Lillie, W. Zarin, K.K. O'Brien, D. Levac, D. Moher, M.D.J. Peters, T. Horsley, C. Chang, J. McGowan, A. Aldcroft, C. Garritty.
Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: A.C. Tricco, E. Lillie, W. Zarin, K.K. O'Brien, D. Moher, M.D.J. Peters, T. Horsley, L. Weeks, S. Hempel, E.A. Akl, J. McGowan, L. Stewart, L. Hartling, A. Aldcroft, M.G. Wilson, C. Garritty, S. Lewin, C.M. Godfrey, E.V. Langlois, T. Clifford, Ö. Tunçalp, S.E. Straus.
Final approval of the article: A.C. Tricco, E. Lillie, W. Zarin, K.K. O'Brien, H. Colquhoun, D. Levac, D. Moher, M.D.J. Peters, T. Horsley, L. Weeks, S. Hempel, E.A. Akl, C. Chang, J. McGowan, L. Stewart, L. Hartling, A. Aldcroft, M.G. Wilson, C. Garritty, S. Lewin, C.M. Godfrey, M.T. Macdonald, E.V. Langlois, K. Soares-Weiser, J. Moriarty, T. Clifford, Ö. Tunçalp, S.E. Straus.
Obtaining of funding: A.C. Tricco, K.K. O'Brien, S.E. Straus.
Administrative, technical, or logistic support: E. Lillie, W. Zarin, S.E. Straus.
Collection and assembly of data: E. Lillie, W. Zarin, K.K. O'Brien, H. Colquhoun, T. Horsley, L. Weeks, S. Hempel, E.A. Akl, L. Hartling, A. Aldcroft, C. Garritty, M.T. Macdonald, K. Soares-Weiser, T. Clifford, Ö. Tunçalp.
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.
Methods flow chart.
PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses; PRISMA-ScR = PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews.
Table. PRISMA-ScR Checklist
Screening of cognitive impairment in the dialysis population: a scoping review. (31)
Background. Among circumpolar populations, recent research has documented a significant increase in risk factors which are commonly associated with chronic disease, notably obesity.
Objective. The present study undertakes a scoping review of research on obesity in the circumpolar Inuit to determine the extent obesity research has been undertaken, how well all subpopulations and geographic areas are represented, the methodologies used and whether they are sufficient in describing risk factors, and the prevalence and health outcomes associated with obesity.
Design. Online databases were used to identify papers published 1992–2011, from which we selected 38 publications from Canada, the United States, and Greenland that used obesity as a primary or secondary outcome variable in 30 or more non-pregnant Inuit…participants aged 2 years or older.
Results. The majority of publications (92%) reported cross-sectional studies while 8% examined retrospective cohorts. All but one of the studies collected measured data. Overall 84% of the publications examined obesity in adults. Those examining obesity in children focused on early childhood or adolescence. While most (66%) reported 1 or more anthropometric indices, none incorporated direct measures of adiposity. Evaluated using a customized quality assessment instrument, 26% of studies achieved an “A” quality ranking, while 18 and 39% achieved quality rankings of “B” and “C”, respectively.
Conclusions. While the quality of studies is generally high, research on obesity among Inuit would benefit from careful selection of methods and reference standards, direct measures of adiposity in adults and children, studies of preadolescent children, and prospective cohort studies linking early childhood exposures with obesity outcomes throughout childhood and adolescence. (32)
The support of the social environment is equally important: parents, peers, teachers, community-members, and friends. Parents, in particular, greatly influence participation at school, at home and in the community. They undertake many actions to improve their children's participation in daily life. Understanding the actions of parents and also their challenges and needs will contribute to how society can support these parents and thereby enable the participation of children with physical disabilities. Pediatric rehabilitation, aiming for optimal participation, could benefit from this understanding to improve Family-centered services (FCS). In FCS, the family is seen as an expert on the child's abilities and needs, and professionals work in partnership with the family. Pediatric rehabilitation considers FCS as a way to increase participation of children with a physical disability in daily life.
However, it is unclear what kind of information is available in literature about what parents live through, do, and what kind of problems and needs they have in supporting their child's participation? For these reasons, a scoping review was conducted in order to systematically map the research done in this area, as well as to identify any existing gaps in knowledge. (36)
…a scoping review was conducted in order to systematically map the research done in this area, as well as to identify any existing gaps in knowledge.…The following research question was formulated: What is known from the literature about parents' action, challenges, and needs while enabling participation of their children with a physical disability? (36)
Our protocol was drafted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P…), which was revised by the research team and members of Health Canada, and was disseminated through our programme's Twitter account (@KTCanada) and newsletter to solicit additional feedback. The final protocol was registered prospectively with the Open Science Framework on 6 September 2016 (https://osf.io/kv9hu/). (40)
…to be included in the review, papers needed to measure or focus on specific dimensions of treatment burden, developed in the conceptual framework (e.g. financial, medication, administrative, lifestyle, healthcare and time/travel). Peer-reviewed journal papers were included if they were: published between the period of 2000–2016, written in English, involved human participants and described a measure for burden of treatment, e.g. including single measurements, measuring and/or incorporating one or two dimensions of burden of treatment. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies were included in order to consider different aspects of measuring treatment burden. Papers were excluded if they did not fit into the conceptual framework of the study, focused on a communicable chronic condition, for example human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) or substance abuse. Papers talking about carer burden, in addition to patient burden of treatment, were also included. (45)
To identify potentially relevant documents, the following bibliographic databases were searched from 2004 to June 2015: MEDLINE, EMBASE, LexisNexis Academic, the Legal Scholarship Network, Justis, LegalTrac, QuickLaw, and HeinOnline. The search strategies were drafted by an experienced librarian [name] and further refined through team discussion. The final search strategy for MEDLINE can be found in Additional file 3. The final search results were exported into EndNote, and duplicates were removed by a library technician. The electronic database search was supplemented by searching the Canadian Medical Protective Association website (https://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/en) and scanning relevant reviews. (46)
The final search strategy for MEDLINE can be found in Additional file 3.…
…Medline Search Strategy (Literature Search performed: June 15, 2015)
2. “Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Hospital”/
3. exp Obstetric Surgical Procedures/
5. exp Obstetric Labor Complications/
6. exp “Dilatation and Curettage”/
7. exp Hysterectomy/
8. Sterilization, Tubal/
10. exp Pregnancy Complications/
11. cerebral palsy/
12. Asphyxia Neonatorum/
13. (abortion$ or cervical cerclage or colpotomy or culdoscop$ or fetoscop$ or hysteroscop$ or hysterotomy).tw.
14. (paracervical block$ or obstetric$ anesthe$ or obstetric$ anaesthe$).tw.
15. (Cesarean or Episiotom$ or obstetric$ abstraction$ or fetal version).tw.
16. ((induc$ or augmentation or premature or pre-term or preterm or obstructed) adj (labour or labor)).tw.
17. (Abruptio Placentae or breech or Cephalopelvic Disproportion or premature rupture of fetal membrane$ or prom or fetal membranes premature rupture or Dystocia or Uterine Inertia or Chorioamnionitis or Placenta Accreta or Placenta Previa or Postpartum Hemorrhage or Uterine Inversion or Uterine Rupture or Vasa Previa).tw.
18. (Fetal Death or Fetal Resorption or Stillbirth or perinatal death or peri-natal death or Maternal Death or Birth Injuri$ or obstetric$ paralys$).tw.
19. (pre-eclampsia or dilatation or Curettage or Vacuum aspiration).tw.
20. (asphyxia neonatorum or cerebral palsy or birth asphyxia or fetal pulmonary embolism or dystocia).tw.
21. exp Dystocia/ or exp Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular/
23. exp Medical Errors/
25. (error$ or advers$ or mistake$ or negligence).tw.
27. 22 and 26
28. exp Malpractice/
29. Expert Testimony/
30. (reforms or tort reform$ or damage award limit$ or lawsuit$ or immunity provision$).tw.
31. (immunity provision$ or immunity clause$ or fault compensation or Malpractice or expert witness$).tw.
32. (statutes adj2 limitations).tw.
34. exp Jurisprudence/
36. 27 and 35
37. Limit 36 to yr = 2004-current
38. Limit 37 to English (46)
To increase consistency among reviewers, all reviewers screened the same 50 publications, discussed the results and amended the screening and data extraction manual before beginning screening for this review. Nine reviewers working in pairs sequentially evaluated the titles, abstracts and then full text of all publications identified by our searches for potentially relevant publications.… We resolved disagreements on study selection and data extraction by consensus and discussion with other reviewers if needed. (49)
Implementation of calibration exercises (items 9 and 10).
A data-charting form was jointly developed by two reviewers to determine which variables to extract. The two reviewers independently charted the data, discussed the results and continuously updated the data-charting form in an iterative process. (50)
Data from eligible studies were [charted] using a standardized data abstraction tool designed for this study. The tool captured the relevant information on key study characteristics and detailed information on all metrics used to estimate/describe [child] growth based on at least two data points per child/group (even though our tool can accommodate metrics based on cross-sectional analyses) anywhere in the article, including metrics that were mentioned in the narrative yet for which results were not shown.…
Two reviewers independently [charted] data from each eligible article. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion between the two reviewers or further adjudication by a third reviewer. Data [charting] was implemented using REDCap, a customizable informatics systems-based web software. (51)
We abstracted data on article characteristics (e.g., country of origin, funder), engagement characteristics and contextual factors (e.g., type of knowledge user, country income level, type of engagement activity, frequency and intensity of engagement, use of a framework to inform the intervention), barriers and facilitators to engagement, and results of any formal assessment of engagement (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, benefits, unintended consequences). (52)
…an in-depth assessment of the conduct of the knowledge synthesis approaches underlying the NMA [network meta-analysis] is lacking. As such, we aimed to explore the characteristics and methodological quality of knowledge synthesis approaches of NMAs. We also aimed to assess the statistical methods applied using the Analysis subdomain of the ISPOR checklist.…
The quality of the knowledge synthesis methods was appraised using the AMSTAR tool. The AMSTAR tool was created and validated to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews of RCTs. The tool measures overall quality, where a score of 8 or higher is considered high quality, 4 to 7 is moderate quality, and 0 to 3 is low quality. Information for quality assessment was incorporated into the data extraction form, which was pilot-tested on a random sample of seven included articles that ranged from low to high quality.
To appraise the validity of the analytical methods applied, we used the 6-item Analysis subdomain of the ISPOR checklist for NMAs. To ensure high inter-rater agreement, a workshop on the tool was held with the team and two pilot-tests were conducted on a random sample of seven included NMAs. Each pilot-test consisted of a facilitated team meeting for feedback and discussion on discrepant items. Upon completion of the pilot-tests, pairs of reviewers (A.A.V., W.Z., J.A., S.S., P.R., C.D., J.E.) independently assessed the first 215 included articles. The remaining 241 included articles were assessed by one reviewer (M.P.) and verified by a second reviewer (A.V., S.S.). All discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer (W.Z., A.A.V.). ISPOR items that were not applicable to open loop networks (related terms include without a closed-loop, star-shaped network, and tree-shaped network) were scored as “not applicable.” Items related to heterogeneity were also not applicable to NMAs that used a fixed-effect model and provided a rationale for selecting this model. (53)
We grouped the studies by the types of behavior they analyzed, and summarized the type of settings, populations and study designs for each group, along with the measures used and broad findings. Where we identified a systematic review, we counted the number of studies included in the review that potentially met our inclusion criteria and noted how many studies had been missed by our search. (54)
After duplicates were removed, a total of 883 citations were identified from searches of electronic databases and review article references. Based on the title and the abstract, 699 were excluded, with 184 full text articles to be retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Of these, 144 were excluded for the following reasons: 23 did not directly quantify the effects of climate change, 53 did not directly quantify effects on human health, and 67 were not considered to be original quantitative research (e.g., review articles, commentaries). We excluded 1 study because we were unable to retrieve it. The remaining 40 studies were considered eligible for this review. (55)
Example of item 17, selection of sources of evidence.
The modules [of the e-recovery interventions] are described in Table 2, together with a description of aim, target group and setting for each intervention.…
The studies' place of origin, aims, design, methods, measures and outcomes, and main findings related to each intervention are presented in Table 3 Study characteristics. The number of studies available per interventions varied from one to six. (56)
See Appendix Figure 2 (53).
Example of item 19, critical appraisal within sources of evidence.
From the same example presented in item 12. Adapted from reference 53. AMSTAR = A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews.
See Appendix Figure 3 (57).
Example of item 20, results of individual sources of evidence.
Scoping review included articles. Adapted from reference 57.
Active Travel and Physical Activity
Ninety-two studies examined associations between active travel and physical activity [references]. The majority were from the UK (n = 24) and USA (n = 19), followed by Australia (n = 12), Canada (n = 7), Denmark (n = 6) and New Zealand (n = 5). Other countries with less than five studies included: Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Estonia, Germany, Sweden, and Ireland. The majority were conducted among children (70%, n = 64), including 8 studies that included only children under 10 years old. Only two studies reported analyses of only adults over 65 [references].
The vast majority of studies used cross-sectional analyses—only six studies out of 92 (6.5%) reported results from longitudinal or pre/post analysis to examine associations between active travel and physical activity [references]. Just over half of the studies (n = 48) used objective measures (e.g., accelerometer, pedometer) to assess physical activity.
Overall, most studies (n = 72; 78%, representing 75% of the children's and 86% of the adults' studies) reported a positive association between active travel and physical activity; however many of these (n = 32) reported mixed results overall (e.g., when using more than one measure of physical activity, or in sub-analyses such as for gender). Of the 20 studies that reported no association, 12 used objective measures to assess physical activity. The average numbers of participants in these 20 studies were much lower than in studies which did report an association. This may be indicative of insufficient power to find associations. (54)
Example of item 21, synthesis of results.
Description of included studies in the scoping review of bivariate analyses of health and environmental behaviors. Adapted from reference 54. AT/PA = active transportation and physical activity.
In this scoping review we identified 88 primary studies addressing dissemination and implementation research across various settings of dementia care published between 1998 and 2015. Our findings indicate a paucity of research focusing specifically on dissemination of knowledge within dementia care and a limited number of studies on implementation in this area. We also found that training and educating professionals, developing stakeholder interrelationships, and using evaluative and iterative strategies are frequently employed to introduce and promote change in practice. However, although important and feasible, these strategies only partly address what is repeatedly highlighted in the evidence base: that organisational factors are reported as the main barrier to implementation of knowledge within dementia care. Moreover, included studies clearly support an increased effort to improve the quality of dementia care provided in residential settings in the last decade. (26)
Our scoping review has some limitations. To make our review more feasible, we were only able to include a random sample of rapid reviews from websites of rapid review producers. Further adding to this issue is that many rapid reviews contain proprietary information and are not publicly available. As such, our results are only likely generalizable to rapid reviews that are publicly available. Furthermore, this scoping review was an enormous undertaking and our results are only up to date as of May 2013. (58)
The lack of evidence to support physiotherapy interventions for this population appears to pose a challenge to physiotherapists. The aim of this scoping review was to identify gaps in the literature which may guide a future systematic review. However, the lack of evidence found means that undertaking a systematic review is not appropriate or necessary.
Evidence is insufficient to guide the nature of the physiotherapy intervention. There is also limited evidence to describe the experiences of patients, next of kin, or physiotherapists working with this population. The consideration of the attitudes towards an intervention could be considered a vital component of a complex intervention and it is suggested that they should be an integral part of the implementation of that intervention. This advocates high quality research being needed to determine what physiotherapy techniques may be of benefit for this population and to help guide physiotherapists as how to deliver this. (59)
This paper was funded by Stichting Innovatie Alliantie (PRO-3-36) (http://www.regieorgaan-sia.nl) and Zuyd University of Applied Sciences. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. (50)
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–473. [Epub ahead of print 4 September 2018]. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Download citation file:
Published: Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-473.
Published at www.annals.org on 4 September 2018
Research and Reporting Methods.
Results provided by:
Copyright © 2020 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.
Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704
Conditions of Use