Title Analysis of (Systematic) Scoping Review Studies: Chaos or Consistency?

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61989592%3A15410%2F20%3A73601436" target="_blank" >RIV/61989592:15410/20:73601436 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nhs.12694" target="_blank" >https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nhs.12694</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12694" target="_blank" >10.1111/nhs.12694</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Title Analysis of (Systematic) Scoping Review Studies: Chaos or Consistency?

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The scoping review is one of the alternatives of producing a literature review. How-ever, this approach still lacks a clearly accepted definition, and the scoping terminology is also somewhat fuzzy. Although the methodology of scoping review processing is relatively uniform, terminological chaos appears in the titles of studies with scoping review methodology. This paper presents an analysis of selected published studies with a focus on the content of their titles. A total of 13 thematic dimensions were identified covering the content of titles that show a degree of inconsistency and frequent terminological and methodological “chaos.” This study includes a broad scope of themes and areas for which scoping reviews were produced. We would like to recommend to authors (especially scoping review beginners) to – if not necessary or desirable – avoid introducing new concepts and specifications of titles of produced and published scoping review studies. In the case of literature reviews and knowledge synthesis it is necessary to search according to specific keywords and search phrases – more fragmented scoping review terminology makes literature search more difficult or even impossible

Název v anglickém jazyce

Title Analysis of (Systematic) Scoping Review Studies: Chaos or Consistency?

Popis výsledku anglicky

The scoping review is one of the alternatives of producing a literature review. How-ever, this approach still lacks a clearly accepted definition, and the scoping terminology is also somewhat fuzzy. Although the methodology of scoping review processing is relatively uniform, terminological chaos appears in the titles of studies with scoping review methodology. This paper presents an analysis of selected published studies with a focus on the content of their titles. A total of 13 thematic dimensions were identified covering the content of titles that show a degree of inconsistency and frequent terminological and methodological “chaos.” This study includes a broad scope of themes and areas for which scoping reviews were produced. We would like to recommend to authors (especially scoping review beginners) to – if not necessary or desirable – avoid introducing new concepts and specifications of titles of produced and published scoping review studies. In the case of literature reviews and knowledge synthesis it is necessary to search according to specific keywords and search phrases – more fragmented scoping review terminology makes literature search more difficult or even impossible

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50902 - Social sciences, interdisciplinary

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2020

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Nursing &amp; Health Sciences

ISSN

1441-0745

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

22

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

3

Stát vydavatele periodika

JP - Japonsko

Počet stran výsledku

6

Strana od-do

"557–562"

Kód UT WoS článku

000561949300001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85081233118