Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2020.07.23.218743

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

Maggio, L. A.·Larsen, K.·Costello, J.·Thomas, A.·Artino, A. R.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to characterize the extent, range, and nature of scoping reviews published in core medical education journals. In so doing, the authors identify areas for improvement in the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews, and highlight opportunities for future research. MethodThe authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1999 through April 2020 in 14 medical education journals. From each review, the authors extracted and summarized key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions, and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. Rationales and research questions were mapped to the reasons for conducting a scoping review, as described by Arksey and OMalley. ResultsOne hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average 10.1 scoping reviews (MED=4, SD=13.08) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n=42) in 13 of the included 14 journals reviewed. Academic Medicine published the most scoping reviews (n=28) overall. Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews, including to: summarize and disseminate research findings (n=77); examine the extent, range, and nature of research activity in a given area (n=74); and to analyze an emerging topic or heterogenous literature base (n=46). In 11 reviews there was alignment between the rationales for the scoping review and the stated research questions. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA-ScR, with only a minority of authors publishing a protocol (n=2) or including stakeholders (n=20). Authors identified several shortcomings of scoping review methodology, including being unable to critically assess the included studies. ConclusionsMedical educators are increasingly conducting scoping reviews with a desire to characterize the literature on a topic. There is room for improvement in the reporting of scoping reviews, including the alignment of research questions, the creation and publishing of protocols, and the inclusion of external stakeholders in published works.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Maggio, L. A., Larsen, K., Costello, J., Thomas, A., Artino, A. R.. 2020-07-24. Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.23.218743

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2022

Welfare concerns for mounted load carrying by working donkeys in Pakistan

Working donkeys (Equus asinus) are vital to peoples livelihoods. They are essential for carrying goods, however globally, overloading is one of the primary welfare concerns of working donkeys. We studied mounted load carrying by donkeys and associated factors in Pakistan. A cross-sectional study of donkey owners (n = 332) was conducted, and interviews were undertaken based on a questionnaire. Owners estimated that the median weight of their donkeys was 110kg (interquartile range (IQR) 100-120kg), and that they carried a median mounted load of 81.5kg (IQR 63-99kg). We found that 87.4% of donkeys carried a load above 50% of their bodyweight ratio (BWR), the median BWR carried was 77.1% (IQR 54.5-90.7%), and 25.3% of donkeys carried above 90% BWR. Donkeys that were loaded at more than 50% BWR were more likely to sit, compared to donkeys loaded with less weight (p=0.01). Donkeys working in peri-urban and urban areas were more likely to carry a greater BWR than donkeys working in rural areas (P<0.001), as were those carrying construction materials or bricks, compared to agricultural materials (p=0.004). Age (p=0.03) and breed (p=0.01) were also associated with carrying a higher weight. Overloading based on current recommendations (50% BWR) was common, with the majority (87.4%) of donkeys reported to carry more than the recommended 50% limit. This survey provides evidence of on-the-ground working practices and factors associated with mounted load carrying, which is critical for developing evidence-based recommendations for loading, in order to improve the welfare of working donkeys.

scientific communication and education↗