Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
Andrea C. Tricco, Erin Lillie, Wasifa Zarin, Kelly Kathleen O’Brien, Heather L. Colquhoun, Danielle Elaine Levac, David Moher, Micah D.J. Peters, Tanya Horsley, Laura Weeks, Susanne Hempel, Elie A. Akl, Christine Chang, Jessie McGowan, Lesley A. Stewart, Lisa Hartling, Adrian Aldcroft, Michael G. Wilson, Chantelle Garritty, Simon A. Lewin, Christina M. Godfrey, Marilyn Macdonald, Étienne V Langlois, Karla Soares‐Weiser, Jo Moriarty, Tammy J. Clifford, Özge Tunçalp, Sharon Elizabeth Straus. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2018-09-03
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D. E., et al. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/m18-0850
Vancouver
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun HL, Levac DE, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2018. doi:10.7326/m18-0850. PMID: 30178033.
BibTeX
@article{tricco2018-30178033,
author = {Tricco, Andrea C. and Lillie, Erin and Zarin, Wasifa and O’Brien, Kelly Kathleen and Colquhoun, Heather L. and Levac, Danielle Elaine and Moher, David and Peters, Micah D.J. and Horsley, Tanya and Weeks, Laura and Hempel, Susanne and Akl, Elie A. and Chang, Christine and McGowan, Jessie and Stewart, Lesley A. and Hartling, Lisa and Aldcroft, Adrian and Wilson, Michael G. and Garritty, Chantelle and Lewin, Simon A. and Godfrey, Christina M. and Macdonald, Marilyn and Langlois, Étienne V and Soares‐Weiser, Karla and Moriarty, Jo and Clifford, Tammy J. and Tunçalp, Özge and Straus, Sharon Elizabeth},
title = {{PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation}},
journal = {Annals of Internal Medicine},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.7326/m18-0850},
pmid = {30178033},
url = {https://doi.org/10.7326/m18-0850}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 28 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Why it matters
Presents PRISMA-ScR, a checklist and explanation for reporting scoping reviews, developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads. The final checklist has 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. It is a reporting guideline, not about Alzheimer's specifically.
How this study scored 63/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on strength of evidence, so that was left out: it earned 60 of the 95 points we could judge it on, which is 63 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Annals of Internal Medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | 4 / 4 | Annals of Internal Medicine: journal h-index 648 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | — / 5 | No evidence rating recorded — left out of this score |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 7 / 7 | Cited 42,789 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 5 / 5 | 4,278.9 citations a year over 10 year(s) since 2018 |
| Impact for its field and year | 6 / 6 | Cited 1,016.4× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 4 / 4 | Cited 26,433 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 4 / 4 | Last-listed author Sharon Elizabeth Straus: h-index 114 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | University of Toronto: institution h-index 1,923 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 3 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 24 institution(s) in 8 countries |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30178033) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 60 / 95 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 60 of the 95 points we could judge it on is 63 out of 100. |
| Total | 63 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.7326/m18-0850
- PubMed: 30178033
- Original source →
- Free full text: White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also in Cognitive tests and assessment
88 studies in the library are filed under Cognitive tests and assessment with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Cognitive tests and assessment hub.