Table 1

Comparison of methods and overview of stages

Arksey and O’Malley18
Stage		Arksey and O’Malley Details/stageLevac et al 36
Modifications to framework		Overview of phases
Ongoing consultation*

  1. Optional stage completed at end.

  1. Essential stage.

  2. Establish purpose.

  3. Articulate type of stakeholder to consult and how data will be collected, analysed, reported and integrated.

Stakeholders:

  1. Scoping review expert (SCK).

  2. Scar expert (JSF).

  3. Health information specialist (TAW).

  4. Two coders (AM, NZ).

Identifying research questions

  1. Wide approach to scoping review research question including population, interventions or outcome.

  1. Research question, consider:

    1. Concept.

    2. Target population.

    3. Health outcomes of interest.

  2. Consider the intended outcome to help determine.

  1. Research question:

    1. Scars.

    2. Individuals with scars.

    3. To determine the impact on psychosocial health and QOL.

  2. Outcomes:

    1. Have a better understanding of the wide-ranging impact of scars on the individual in order to change clinical care, formulate research questions and improve patient care.

Identify relevant studiesIdentify studies via:

  1. Electronic databases.

  2. Reference list.

  3. Hand-searching of key journals.

  4. Existing networks, relevant organisations, conferences.

Consider:

  1. Language.

  2. Time span.

  1. Research question and purpose guides decision-making.

  2. Team.

Will identify studies in:

  1. Databases.

  2. Hand- search relevant reviews and papers.

  3. Examine websites from relevant associations and patient advocacy groups.

Language restriction: English.
Time span: no restriction.
Study selection

  1. Post hoc inclusion and exclusion criteria after familiarisation of data.

  2. Full-text articles that meet criteria.

  1. Iterative process: constant refinements.

  2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria discussed a priori, two coders will independently review articles.

  3. Coders meet at beginning, midpoint and final stage.

  4. Any disagreements resolved by third party.

  1. Post hoc inclusion and exclusion criteria after familiarisation of data.

  2. Iterative process: constant refinements.

  3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria discussed a priori, two coders independently review articles (after a small pilot to ensure common understanding of criteria).

  4. Coders meet at beginning, midpoint and final stage.

  5. Any disagreements resolved by third party.

Charting the dataCharting: synthesising and interpreting qualitative data by sifting, charting and sorting materials based on key issues and themes.

  1. Create a data extraction a priori.

  2. Data extraction—iterative process.

  3. Two independent authors extract data.

Charting, synthesising and interpreting qualitative data by sifting, charting and sorting materials based on key issues and themes by an iterative process of:

  1. Creating a data extraction a priori with two independent authors to extract data.

Collating, summarising and reporting data

  1. Present overview of all materials reviewed.

  2. Summarise data extracted.

  3. Identify research gaps.

  1. Data analysis— quantitative and qualitative.

  2. Report results.

  3. Complete desired outcome.

  4. Discuss implications for future research.

  1. Present overview of data.

  2. Summarise data extracted.

  3. Report results.

  4. Complete guideline.

  5. Identify research gaps and discuss implications for future research.

  • *Ongoing consultation will occur throughout the scoping review process.34

  • QOL, quality of life.

  • References: Arksey and O’Malley18; Levac et al 36.