Researcher-patient partnership generated actionable recommendations, using quantitative evaluation and deliberative dialogue, to improve meaningful engagement.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate how the 22-item Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22) can be used to develop recommendations for improving the meaningfulness of patient engagement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: PEIRS-22 previously captured quantitative evaluation data from 15 patient partners in a self-study of the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Evidence Alliance. Guided by deliberative dialogue, the current study involved 3 steps: (1) In-depth analysis and interpretation of the PEIRS-22 data produced a lay evidence summary with identified areas for improvement of meaningful engagement; (2) A 3-hour virtual workshop with patient partners and researchers generated initial recommendations; and (3) In two successive post-workshop surveys, ratings by workshop invitees led to consensus on the recommendations. RESULTS: Twenty-five participants attended the workshops and dialogued on 8 areas for improvement identified from the PEIRS-22 data. Twenty-eight unique initial recommendations led to consensus on 14 key recommendations organized across 4 categories: setting expectations for all team members, building trust and ongoing communication, providing opportunities to enhance learning and to develop skills, and acknowledging contributions of patient partners. CONCLUSION: Using PEIRS-22 data within a deliberate dialogue elucidated 14 actionable recommendations to support ongoing improvement of patient engagement at SPOR Evidence Alliance, a pan-Canadian health research initiative.

Interventions to improve early cancer diagnosis of symptomatic individuals: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To summarise the current evidence regarding interventions for accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals. DESIGN: A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodological framework for the conduct of scoping reviews and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and PsycINFO (Ovid) bibliographic databases, and websites of relevant organisations. Published and unpublished literature (grey literature) of any study type in the English language were searched for from January 2017 to January 2021. ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: Study participants were individuals of any age presenting at clinics with symptoms indicative of cancer. Interventions included practice guidelines, care pathways or other initiatives focused on achieving predefined benchmarks or targets for wait times, streamlined or rapid cancer diagnostic services, multidisciplinary teams and patient navigation strategies. Outcomes included accuracy and timeliness of cancer diagnosis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We summarised findings graphically and descriptively. RESULTS: From 21 298 retrieved citations, 88 unique published articles and 16 unique unpublished documents (on 18 study reports), met the eligibility for inclusion. About half of the published literature and 83% of the unpublished literature were from the UK. Most of the studies were on interventions in patients with lung cancer. Rapid referral pathways and technology for supporting and streamlining the cancer diagnosis process were the most studied interventions. Interventions were mostly complex and organisation-specific. Common themes among the studies that concluded intervention was effective were multidisciplinary collaboration and the use of a nurse navigator. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary cooperation and involvement of a nurse navigator may be unique features to consider when designing, delivering and evaluating interventions focused on improving accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals. Future research should examine the effectiveness of the interventions identified through this review.

Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application.

Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to evidence synthesis with a growing suite of methodological guidance and resources to assist review authors with their planning, conduct and reporting. The latest guidance for scoping reviews includes the JBI methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Extension for Scoping Reviews. This paper provides readers with a brief update regarding ongoing work to enhance and improve the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews as well as information regarding the future steps in scoping review methods development. The purpose of this paper is to provide readers with a concise source of information regarding the difference between scoping reviews and other review types, the reasons for undertaking scoping reviews, and an update on methodological guidance for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews.Despite available guidance, some publications use the term 'scoping review' without clear consideration of available reporting and methodological tools. Selection of the most appropriate review type for the stated research objectives or questions, standardised use of methodological approaches and terminology in scoping reviews, clarity and consistency of reporting and ensuring that the reporting and presentation of the results clearly addresses the review's objective(s) and question(s) are critical components for improving the rigour of scoping reviews.Rigourous, high-quality scoping reviews should clearly follow up to date methodological guidance and reporting criteria. Stakeholder engagement is one area where further work could occur to enhance integration of consultation with the results of evidence syntheses and to support effective knowledge translation. Scoping review methodology is evolving as a policy and decision-making tool. Ensuring the integrity of scoping reviews by adherence to up-to-date reporting standards is integral to supporting well-informed decision-making.

Scoping Review on Rehabilitation Scoping Reviews.

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 (eg, spread over 43 condition groupings); 43% were published in Canada. Examples of methodological limitations included: 39% of reviews did not cite the use of a methodological framework, 96% did not include the appropriate flow diagram, 8% did not report eligibility criteria, and 57% did not report 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.

Characteristics and methods of incorporating randomized and nonrandomized evidence in network meta-analyses: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to conduct a scoping review of the published literature on methods used to combine randomized and nonrandomized evidence (NRE) in network meta-analyses (NMAs) and their respective characteristics. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a scoping review using a list of NMAs which incorporated NRE that were identified from a previous review. All NMAs that included NRE in the analysis of main outcomes or sensitivity analyses were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion and performed data abstraction. Data analysis involved quantitative (frequencies and percentages) and qualitative (narrative synthesis) methods. RESULTS: A total of 23 NMAs met the predefined inclusion criteria, of which 74% (n = 17) used naïve pooling, 0% used NRE as informative priors, 9% (n = 2) used the 3-level Bayesian hierarchical model, 9% (n = 2) used all methods, and 9% (n = 2) used other methods. Most NMAs were supplemented with additional analyses to investigate the effect estimates when only randomized evidence was included. CONCLUSION: Although most studies provided justification for the inclusion of NRE, transparent reporting of the method used to combine randomized evidence and NRE was unclear in most published networks. Most NMAs used naïve pooling for combining randomized evidence and NRE.

Efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of herpes zoster vaccines in adults aged 50 and older: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of the herpes zoster live attenuated vaccine with the herpes zoster adjuvant recombinant subunit vaccine or placebo for adults aged 50 and older. DESIGN: Systematic review with bayesian meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library (inception to January 2017), grey literature, and reference lists of included studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational studies that compared the live attenuated vaccine with the adjuvant recombinant subunit vaccine, placebo, or no vaccine in adults aged 50 and older. Relevant outcomes were incidence of herpes zoster (primary outcome), herpes zoster ophthalmicus, post-herpetic neuralgia, quality of life, adverse events, and death. RESULTS: 27 studies (22 randomised controlled trials) including 2 044 504 patients, along with 18 companion reports, were included after screening 2037 titles and abstracts, followed by 175 full text articles. Network meta-analysis of five randomised controlled trials found no statistically significant differences between the live attenuated vaccine and placebo for incidence of laboratory confirmed herpes zoster. The adjuvant recombinant subunit vaccine, however, was statistically superior to both the live attenuated vaccine (vaccine efficacy 85%, 95% credible interval 31% to 98%) and placebo (94%, 79% to 98%). Network meta-analysis of 11 randomised controlled trials showed the adjuvant recombinant subunit vaccine to be associated with statistically more adverse events at injection sites than the live attenuated vaccine (relative risk 1.79, 95% credible interval 1.05 to 2.34; risk difference 30%, 95% credible interval 2% to 51%) and placebo (5.63, 3.57 to 7.29 and 53%, 30% to 73%, respectively). Network meta-analysis of nine randomised controlled trials showed the adjuvant recombinant subunit vaccine to be associated with statistically more systemic adverse events than placebo (2.28, 1.45 to 3.65 and 20%, 6% to 40%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Using the adjuvant recombinant subunit vaccine might prevent more cases of herpes zoster than using the live attenuated vaccine, but the adjuvant recombinant subunit vaccine also carries a greater risk of adverse events at injection sites. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Prospero CRD42017056389.

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation.

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.

Patient safety initiatives in obstetrics: a rapid review.

OBJECTIVES: This review was commissioned by WHO, South Africa-Country office because of an exponential increase in medical litigation claims related to patient safety in obstetrical care in the country. A rapid review was conducted to examine the effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) strategies on maternal and newborn patient safety outcomes, risk of litigation and burden of associated costs. DESIGN: A rapid review of the literature was conducted to provide decision-makers with timely evidence. Medical and legal databases (eg, MEDLINE, Embase, LexisNexis Academic, etc) and reference lists of relevant studies were searched. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, abstracted data and appraised risk of bias. Results were summarised narratively. INTERVENTIONS: We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of QI strategies targeting health systems (eg, team changes) and healthcare providers (eg, clinician education) to improve the safety of women and their newborns. Eligible studies were limited to trials published in English between 2004 and 2015. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: RCTs reporting on patient safety outcomes (eg, stillbirths, mortality and caesarean sections), litigation claims and associated costs were included. RESULTS: The search yielded 4793 citations, of which 10 RCTs met our eligibility criteria and provided information on over 500 000 participants. The results are presented by QI strategy, which varied from one study to another. Studies including provider education alone (one RCT), provider education in combination with audit and feedback (two RCTs) or clinician reminders (one RCT), as well as provider education with patient education and audit and feedback (one RCT), reported some improvements to patient safety outcomes. None of the studies reported on litigation claims or the associated costs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that provider education and other QI strategy combinations targeting healthcare providers may improve the safety of women and their newborns during childbirth.

Prevention and management of unprofessional behaviour among adults in the workplace: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Unprofessional behaviour is a challenge in academic medicine. Given that faculty are role models for trainees, it is critical to identify strategies to manage these behaviours. A scoping review was conducted to identify interventions to prevent and manage unprofessional behaviour in any workplace or professional setting. METHODS: A search of 14 electronic databases was conducted in March 2016, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were scanned, and grey literature was searched to identify relevant studies. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies that reported on interventions to prevent or manage unprofessional behaviours were included. Studies that reported impact on any outcome were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened articles and completed data abstraction. Qualitative analysis of the definitions of unprofessional behaviour was conducted. Data were charted to describe the study, participant, intervention and outcome characteristics. RESULTS: 12,482 citations were retrieved; 23 studies with 11,025 participants were included. The studies were 12 uncontrolled before and after studies, 6 controlled before and after studies, 2 cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 1 RCT, 1 non-randomised controlled trial and 1 quasi-RCT. Four constructs were identified in the definitions of unprofessional behaviour: verbal and/or non-verbal acts, repeated acts, power imbalance, and unwelcome behaviour. Interventions most commonly targeted individuals (22 studies, 95.7%) rather than organisations (4 studies, 17.4%). Most studies (21 studies, 91.3%) focused on increasing awareness. The most frequently targeted behaviour change was sexual harassment (4 of 7 studies). DISCUSSION: Several interventions appear promising in addressing unprofessional behaviour. Most of the studies included single component, in-person education sessions targeting individuals and increasing awareness of unprofessional behaviour. Fewer studies targeted the institutional culture or addressed behaviour change.

Utility of social media and crowd-intelligence data for pharmacovigilance: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: A scoping review to characterize the literature on the use of conversations in social media as a potential source of data for detecting adverse events (AEs) related to health products. METHODS: Our specific research questions were (1) What social media listening platforms exist to detect adverse events related to health products, and what are their capabilities and characteristics? (2) What is the validity and reliability of data from social media for detecting these adverse events? MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and relevant websites were searched from inception to May 2016. Any type of document (e.g., manuscripts, reports) that described the use of social media data for detecting health product AEs was included. Two reviewers independently screened citations and full-texts, and one reviewer and one verifier performed data abstraction. Descriptive synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: After screening 3631 citations and 321 full-texts, 70 unique documents with 7 companion reports available from 2001 to 2016 were included. Forty-six documents (66%) described an automated or semi-automated information extraction system to detect health product AEs from social media conversations (in the developmental phase). Seven pre-existing information extraction systems to mine social media data were identified in eight documents. Nineteen documents compared AEs reported in social media data with validated data and found consistent AE discovery in all except two documents. None of the documents reported the validity and reliability of the overall system, but some reported on the performance of individual steps in processing the data. The validity and reliability results were found for the following steps in the data processing pipeline: data de-identification (n = 1), concept identification (n = 3), concept normalization (n = 2), and relation extraction (n = 8). The methods varied widely, and some approaches yielded better results than others. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the use of social media conversations for pharmacovigilance is in its infancy. Although social media data has the potential to supplement data from regulatory agency databases; is able to capture less frequently reported AEs; and can identify AEs earlier than official alerts or regulatory changes, the utility and validity of the data source remains under-studied. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/kv9hu/ ).

Correction to: Engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process: a scoping review.

Following the publication of the original article [1], it was brought to our attention that the letter 'l' was unfortunately omitted from the word 'health' in the article's title.

Engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear how to engage a wide range of knowledge users in research. We aimed to map the evidence on engaging knowledge users with an emphasis on policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process through a scoping review. METHODS: We used the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews. Nine electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE), two grey literature sources (e.g., OpenSIGLE), and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were searched from 1996 to August 2016. We included any type of study describing strategies, barriers and facilitators, or assessing the impact of engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process. Screening and data abstraction were conducted by two reviewers independently with a third reviewer resolving discrepancies. Frequency and thematic analyses were conducted. RESULTS: After screening 8395 titles and abstracts followed by 394 full-texts, 84 unique documents and 7 companion reports fulfilled our eligibility criteria. All 84 documents were published in the last 10 years, and half were prepared in North America. The most common type of knowledge synthesis with knowledge user engagement was a systematic review (36%). The knowledge synthesis most commonly addressed an issue at the level of national healthcare system (48%) and focused on health services delivery (17%) in high-income countries (86%). Policy-makers were the most common (64%) knowledge users, followed by healthcare professionals (49%) and government agencies as well as patients and caregivers (34%). Knowledge users were engaged in conceptualization and design (49%), literature search and data collection (52%), data synthesis and interpretation (71%), and knowledge dissemination and application (44%). Knowledge users were most commonly engaged as key informants through meetings and workshops as well as surveys, focus groups, and interviews either in-person or by telephone and emails. Knowledge user content expertise/awareness was a common facilitator (18%), while lack of time or opportunity to participate was a common barrier (12%). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge users were most commonly engaged during the data synthesis and interpretation phases of the knowledge synthesis conduct. Researchers should document and evaluate knowledge user engagement in knowledge synthesis. REGISTRATION DETAILS: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/4dy53/ ).

Same family, different species: methodological conduct and quality varies according to purpose for five types of knowledge synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to characterize methodological conduct, reporting, and quality of five knowledge synthesis (KS) approaches. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective analysis of a convenience sample of five published databases of KS approaches: overview of reviews (n = 74), scoping reviews (n = 494), rapid reviews (n = 84), systematic reviews (n = 300), and network meta-analyses (NMAs; n = 456). Data in the five published databases were abstracted by two reviewers independently, any missing data for this retrospective analysis were abstracted by one experienced reviewer. Methods were appraised using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: Reporting the use of a protocol ranged from 4% for rapid reviews to 32% for systematic reviews. The use of two reviewers for citation and full-text screening ranged from 20% for scoping reviews to 60% for NMAs. Data abstraction was performed in duplicate for 11% of rapid reviews and 54% of NMAs, and for risk of bias appraisal, this ranged from 6% for scoping reviews to 41% for NMAs. NMAs had the highest median percentage of maximum obtainable AMSTAR score (64%; Q1-Q3:45-73%), while scoping reviews had the lowest (25%; Q1-Q3:13-38%). CONCLUSION: NMAs consistently scored the highest on the AMSTAR tool likely because the purpose is to estimate treatment effects statistically. Scoping reviews scored the lowest (even after adjusting the score for not relevant items) likely because the purpose is to characterize the literature.

Evaluative reports on medical malpractice policies in obstetrics: a rapid scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The clinical specialty of obstetrics is under particular scrutiny with increasing litigation costs and unnecessary tests and procedures done in attempts to prevent litigation. We aimed to identify reports evaluating or comparing the effectiveness of medical liability reforms and quality improvement strategies in improving litigation-related outcomes in obstetrics. METHODS: We conducted a rapid scoping review with a 6-week timeline. MEDLINE, EMBASE, LexisNexis Academic, the Legal Scholarship Network, Justis, LegalTrac, QuickLaw, and HeinOnline were searched for publications in English from 2004 until June 2015. The selection criteria for screening were established a priori and pilot-tested. We included reports comparing or evaluating the impact of obstetrics-related medical liability reforms and quality improvement strategies on cost containment and litigation settlement across all countries. All levels of screening were done by two reviewers independently, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. In addition, two reviewers independently extracted relevant data using a pre-tested form, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The results were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: The search resulted in 2729 citations, of which 14 reports met our eligibility criteria. Several initiatives for improving the medical malpractice litigation system were found, including no-fault approaches, patient safety policy initiatives, communication and resolution, caps on compensation and attorney fees, alternative payment system and liabilities, and limitations on litigation. CONCLUSIONS: Only a few litigation policies in obstetrics were evaluated or compared. Included documents showed that initiatives to reduce medical malpractice litigation could be associated with a decrease in adverse and malpractice events. However, due to heterogeneous settings (e.g., economic structure, healthcare system) and variation in the outcomes reported, the advantages and disadvantages of initiatives may vary.

Effectiveness of different compression-to-ventilation methods for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A systematic review.

AIM: To compare the effectiveness of different compression-to-ventilation methods during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in patients with cardiac arrest. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until January 2016. We included experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational studies that compared different chest compression-to-ventilation ratios during CPR for all patients and assessed at least one of the following outcomes: favourable neurological outcomes, survival, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and quality of life. Two reviewers independently screened literature search results, abstracted data, and appraised the risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted separately for randomised and non-randomised studies, as well as study characteristics, such as CPR provider. RESULTS: After screening 5703 titles and abstracts and 229 full-text articles, we included 41 studies, of which 13 were companion reports. For adults receiving bystander or dispatcher-instructed CPR, no significant differences were observed across all comparisons and outcomes. Significantly less adults receiving bystander-initiated or plus dispatcher-instructed compression-only CPR experienced favourable neurological outcomes, survival, and ROSC compared to CPR 30:2 (compression-to-ventilation) in un-adjusted analyses in a large cohort study. Evidence from emergency medical service (EMS) CPR providers showed significantly more adults receiving CPR 30:2 experiencing improved favourable neurological outcomes and survival versus those receiving CPR 15:2. Significantly more children receiving CPR 15:2 or 30:2 experienced favourable neurological outcomes, survival, and greater ROSC compared to compression-only CPR. However, for children <1 years of age, no significant differences were observed between CPR 15:2 or 30:2 and compression-only CPR. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that for adults, CPR 30:2 is associated with better survival and favourable neurological outcomes when compared to CPR 15:2. For children, more patients receiving CPR with either 15:2 or 30:2 compression-to ventilation ratio experienced favourable neurological function, survival, and ROSC when compared to CO-CPR for children of all ages, but for children <1years of age, no statistically significant differences were observed.

Utility of social media and crowd-sourced data for pharmacovigilance: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Adverse events associated with medications are under-reported in postmarketing surveillance systems. A systematic review of published data from 37 studies worldwide (including Canada) found the median under-reporting rate of adverse events to be 94% in spontaneous reporting systems. This scoping review aims to assess the utility of social media and crowd-sourced data to detect and monitor adverse events related to health products including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, biologics and natural health products. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our review conduct will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to 13 May 2016. Additional sources included searches of study registries, conference abstracts, dissertations, as well as websites of international regulatory authorities (eg, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the WHO, European Medicines Agency). Search results will be supplemented by scanning the references of relevant reviews. We will include all publication types including published articles, editorials, websites and book sections that describe use of social media and crowd-sourced data for surveillance of adverse events associated with health products. Two reviewers will perform study selection and data abstraction independently, and discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. Data analysis will involve quantitative (eg, frequencies) and qualitative (eg, content analysis) methods. DISSEMINATION: The summary of results will be sent to Health Canada, who commissioned the review, and other relevant policymakers involved with the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network. We will compile and circulate a 1-page policy brief and host a 1-day stakeholder meeting to discuss the implications, key messages and finalise the knowledge translation strategy. Findings from this review will ultimately inform the design and development of a data analytics platform for social media and crowd-sourced data for pharmacovigilance in Canada and internationally. REGISTRATION DETAILS: Our protocol was registered prospectively with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/kv9hu/).

Study protocol for a scoping review on rehabilitation scoping reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Scoping reviews are increasingly popular in rehabilitation. However, significant variability in scoping review conduct and reporting currently exists, limiting potential for the methodology to advance rehabilitation research, practice and policy. Our aim is to conduct a scoping review of rehabilitation scoping reviews in order to examine the current volume, yearly distribution, proportion, scope and methodological practices involved in the conduct of scoping reviews in rehabilitation. Key areas of methodological improvement will be described. Methods and analysis: We will undertake the review using the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review methodology. Our search will involve two phases. The first will combine a previously conducted scoping review of scoping reviews (not distinct to rehabilitation, with data current to July 2014) together with a rehabilitation keyword search in PubMed. Articles found in the first phase search will undergo a full text review. The second phase will include an update of the previously conducted scoping review of scoping reviews (July 2014 to current). This update will include the search of nine electronic databases, followed by title and abstract screening as well as a full text review. All screening and extraction will be performed independently by two authors. Articles will be included if they are scoping reviews within the field of rehabilitation. A consultation exercise with key targets will inform plans to improve rehabilitation scoping reviews. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics will be required for the consultation phase of our scoping review. Dissemination will include peer-reviewed publication and conferences in rehabilitation-specific contexts.