the methodological and reporting quality of scoping reviews in China: A scoping review

Session Type
Overviews of reviews and scoping reviews
Xue X1, Yu J1, Tang X1, Zhao K1
1Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China

Background: Scoping review can assemble knowledge synthesis for emerging evidence, gives a comprehensive overview of the context and has the potential to influence policy and practice developments. It is increasingly being utilized in China.
Objectives: The purpose of this scoping review is to provide an overview of scoping reviews conducted by Chinese authors within the last decades.
Methods: We searched scoping reviews published by Chinese authors in nine databases and six grey literature databases. We developed pre-defined forms to select reviews and abstract data. Reporting quality was assessed by the Preferred Reporting Items for PRISMA-ScR checklist. We conducted a quantitative analysis of the scoping review conduct and a qualitative analysis of the research scope. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare methodological issues and reporting quality in English-reported and Chinese-reported reviews.
Results: A total of 276 reviews published between 2013 and 2022 were included, 172 English-reported reviews and 104 Chinese-reported reviews, respectively. The purposes mainly focused on mapping and summarizing evidence, and health and nursing were the common topics. 99.3% of reviews used the term "scoping review", and Arksey and O’Malley framework was the most frequently cited framework. Twenty-one English-reported scoping reviews provided a protocol of scoping review. PubMed was the most common source in English-reported reviews and CNKI in Chinese-reported reviews. Reviews published in English more likely to search the grey literature (P=0.011), consult information specialists (P<0.001) and perform an updated search (P=0.008) than those in Chinese. The reviews published in English had a significantly high score than those in Chinese (16 vs. 14; P<0.001). The reporting ratios in English-reported reviews were higher than that in the Chinese reviews in nine items with statistical significance while were lower than in structured summary (P < 0.001) and eligibility criteria (P = 0.003).
Conclusions: The number of scoping reviews conducted by Chinese authors each year is significantly increasing since 2018. Research topics are diverse; however, the reporting quality is unsatisfactory. Overall, scoping reviews conducted by Chinese authors need more standardization.

Table 2 Method characteristics of including reviews.pdf
Table 1 Study characteristics of including reviews.pdf
Fig1-Study selection.tiff