Login
Communauté Vinci
Extérieur
Si votre nom d'utilisateur ne se termine pas par @vinci.be ou @student.vinci.be, utilisez le formulaire ci-dessous pour accéder à votre compte de lecteur.
Titre : | Scoping Review on Rehabilitation Scoping Reviews (2020) |
Auteurs : | Heather L. Colquhoun ; Tiago S. Jesus ; Kelly K. O'Brien ; Andrea C. Tricco ; Adora Chui ; Wasifa Zarin ; Erin Lillie ; Sander L. Hitzig ; Samantha Seaton ; Lisa Engel ; Shlomit Rotenberg ; Sharon E. Straus |
Type de document : | Article |
Dans : | Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (Vol. 101, n° 8, 2020) |
Article en page(s) : | p. 1462-1469 |
Note générale : | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2020.03.015 |
Langues: | Anglais |
Descripteurs : |
HE Vinci Réadaptation ; Revue de la littérature |
Résumé : |
Objective
To examine the extent, scope, and methodological quality of rehabilitation scoping reviews. Data Sources A comprehensive list of scoping reviews conducted in the broader health field (inception to July 2014), with a further update of that list (up to February 2017) using similar methods, including searching 9 electronic databases. Study Selection Articles were included if they were scoping reviews within rehabilitation. Established review methods were used including (1) a PubMed filter detecting rehabilitation content and (2) title-and-abstract screening by 2 independent reviewers applied sequentially to articles from the existing list of scoping reviews and to the updated search results. Full-text articles were reviewed by 1 reviewer, with discrepancies resolved by another after pilot screening with > 80% agreement. Remaining discrepancies were resolved by external experts. Data Extraction Two independent reviewers used piloted and standardized data extraction forms. Data Synthesis We screened 1823 records, including 992 full texts, to identify 251 rehabilitation-related scoping reviews. Rehabilitation scoping reviews had an exponential yearly increase since 2008 (r2=0.89; P<.01 the literature addressed diverse topics spread over condition groupings were published in canada. examples of methodological limitations included: reviews did not cite use a framework include appropriate flow diagram report eligibility criteria and data extraction details.> Conclusions The increasing popularity of scoping reviews in rehabilitation has not been met by high standards in methodological quality. To increase the value of rehabilitation scoping reviews, rehabilitation stakeholders need to use existing methodological standards for the conduct, reporting, and appraisal of scoping reviews. |
Disponible en ligne : | Oui |
En ligne : | https://login.ezproxy.vinci.be/login?url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003999320302148#! |