The work of Arksey and O'Malley [ 38] provides a useful methodological framework for scoping reviews.
Arksey and O'Malley [ 37] propose a methodological framework for scoping reviews to enable replication and strengthen methodological rigour.
This study reviews existing evidence on the burden of non-communicable diseases in Nepal using the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley for scoping reviews.
A key difference between scoping and systematic reviews, however, is that quality assessments are not typical for scoping reviews [ 12] due to differing conceptions of what quality means [ 16].
We used Arksey and O'Malley's [ 39] five-stage framework for scoping reviews: identify the research question; identify relevant studies; study selection; chart the data; and collate, summarise and report results.
For scoping reviews, "charting" is a data extraction technique to synthesize and interpret data by "sifting, charting and sorting materials according to key issues and themes" (page 26) [ 26, 28].
Although not typical for scoping reviews, the methodological quality of the research papers will be assessed using established critical appraisal checklists, such as those produced by the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) [ 52].
Following the methodological approach for scoping reviews from Arksey and O'Malley [ 47], this review has charted the different participants included and documented the relevant inclusion criteria, methodologies implemented, presence of control or comparison groups, noted potential confounds, documented main outcome measures, recorded main results and highlighted key studies' recommendations.
We collected our team's perspectives through a short survey comprised of three open-ended questions: (1) describe any significant challenges/successes that arose from using the Arksey O'Malley framework for scoping reviews; (2) describe any significant challenges/successes that arose from taking part in research with a large, multi-disciplinary group; and (3) additional comments.
12 In designing the protocol for our scoping review of reviews, we drew upon Arksey and O'Malley's 11 seminal work as well as recent scoping review publications.
