A scoping review on the methodological and reporting quality of scoping reviews in China

Abstract Background Scoping reviews have emerged as a valuable method for synthesizing emerging evidence, offering a comprehensive contextual overview, and influencing policy and practice developments. The objective of this study is to provide an overview of scoping reviews conducted by Chinese authors over the last decades. Method We conducted a comprehensive search for scoping reviews conducted by Chinese authors across nine databases and six grey literature databases. The reporting quality of included reviews was assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for PRISMA-ScR checklist. We performed both quantitative and qualitative analyses, examining the conduct of the scoping reviews and exploring the breadth of research topics covered. We used Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests to compare methodological issues and reporting quality in English-reported and Chinese-reported reviews. Results A total of 392 reviews published between 2013 and 2022 were included, 238 English-reported reviews and 154 Chinese-reported reviews, respectively. The primary purposes of these reviews were to map and summarize the evidence, with a particular focus on health and nursing topics. 98.7% of reviews explicitly used the term "scoping review", and the Arksey and O’Malley framework was the most frequently cited framework. Thirty-five English-reported scoping reviews provided a protocol for scoping review. PubMed was the most common source in English-reported reviews and CNKI in Chinese-reported reviews. Reviews published in English were more likely to search the grey literature (P = 0.005), consult information specialists (P < 0.001) and conduct an updated search (P = 0.012) than those in Chinese. Reviews published in English had a significantly high score compared to those published in Chinese (16 vs. 14; P < 0.001). The reporting rates in English-reported reviews were higher than those in Chinese reviews for seven items, but lower for structured summary (P < 0.001), eligibility criteria (P < 0.001), data charting process (P = 0.009) and data items (P = 0.015). Conclusion There has been a significant increase in the number of scoping reviews conducted by Chinese authors each year since 2020. While the research topics covered are diverse, the overall reporting quality of these reviews is unsatisfactory. Therefore, there is a need for greater standardization in the conduct of scoping reviews by Chinese authors.