Search

Aims Design Methods Results Conclusion Clinical Relevance To provide (1) an overview of core characteristics of scoping and mapping review methodologies and (2) to illustrate the differences and similarities of these methodologies using literature on nursing mobile workstations.Systematic review.Systematic searches were conducted to identify (1) scoping and mapping review methodologies used in the field of nursing and (2) literature on nursing mobile workstations. For each systematic search, two reviewers independently screened all titles, abstracts, and full texts. We conducted narrative syntheses for both review questions. Publications on scoping and mapping review methodologies in the field of nursing were searched in MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL (September 2022). Publications on nursing mobile workstations were searched in MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, and Web of Science (April 2022).We identified six scoping and mapping review methodologies (aim 1): bibliometric analysis, evidence mapping, focused mapping review and synthesis, and scoping review. The methodologies aim to provide a graphical, tabular, or narrative overview without a formal critical assessment of the literature. We provide an overview of key variables that reflect the different focus of these methodologies. We also included 26 publications on nursing mobile workstations (aim 2). Nineteen different terms were used to describe the workstations. An overall definition of the nursing mobile workstation was not found.Scoping and mapping methodologies are regularly applied in nursing research. Although there is overlap between the different methodologies, we found some unique characteristics. Despite the regular use of nursing mobile workstations, little is known about their impact in care processes and important features. Future studies on nursing mobile workstations could explore the impact of the workstations in the care process and the current functions of the workstations. A universal definition of the workstations is warranted.Most publications address aspects of practicability of nursing mobile workstations, but we found no universal definition. Little knowledge is available on the impact of the workstations in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citation tracking (CT) collects references with citation relationships to pertinent references that are already known. This scoping review maps the benefit of and the tools and terminology used for CT in health‐related systematic literature searching. We included methodological studies on evidence retrieval by CT in health‐related literature searching without restrictions on study design, language, or publication date. We searched MEDLINE/Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL/EBSCOhost, LLISFT/EBSCOhost, LISTA/EBSCOhost, conducted web searching via Google Scholar, backward/forward CT of included studies and pertinent reviews, and contacting of experts. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility. Data extraction and analysis were performed by one reviewer and checked by another. We screened 11,861 references and included 47 studies published between 1985 and 2021. Most studies (96%) assessed the benefit of CT either as supplementary or primary/stand‐alone search method. Added value of CT for evidence retrieval was found by 96% of them. Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index were the most common citation indexes used. Application of multiple citation indexes in parallel, co‐citing or co‐cited references, CT iterations, or software tools was rare. CT terminology was heterogeneous and frequently ambiguous. The use of CT showed an added value in most of the identified studies; however, the benefit of CT in health‐related systematic literature searching likely depends on multiple factors that could not be assessed with certainty. Application, terminology, and reporting are heterogeneous. Based on our results, we plan a Delphi study to develop recommendations for the use and reporting of CT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]