You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Intensive care
Protocol
Instruments to measure postintensive care syndrome: a scoping review protocol
  1. Yuan Chu1,
  2. Fiona Timmins1,
  3. David Thompson1,2,
  4. Jessica Eustace-Cook3
  1. 1School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
  2. 2School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
  3. 3Hamilton Library, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
  1. Correspondence to Yuan Chu; chu.yuan{at}ucdconnect.ie

Abstract

Introduction There is an increasing need for evaluating postintensive care syndrome in adults concerning their long-term physical, psychological, cognitive and/or social outcomes, yet there is no consensus regarding the choice of instruments to measure these. This scoping review aims to identify and examine instruments used to measure postintensive care syndrome in adults.

Methods and analysis This scoping review will be conducted following the Arksey and O’Malley and its extended framework, and the Joanna Briggs Institute guideline. It will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Review checklists. Medline via EBSCO, CINAHL complete, EMBASE, Web of Science, AME and APA PsycINFO databases and grey literature will be searched from 2010 to the present. Reference lists of included studies will be manually checked to identify additional sources. The quality of included studies will be appraised using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool. All review steps will involve at least two reviewers. Data charting will be performed narratively, comprising study characteristics and findings, and instrument properties. This review will also aim to identify research gaps.

Ethics and dissemination There is no ethics disclosure for this review protocol. This scoping review will identify instruments used to measure postintensive care syndrome in adults. The findings will be disseminated through professional bodies, conferences and research papers.

  • Adult intensive & critical care
  • COVID-19
  • Protocols & guidelines
  • Physiology
  • Anxiety disorders
  • Delirium & cognitive disorders
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061048

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

    • This review will identify and examine instruments used to measure postintensive care syndrome in adults based on its theoretical framework.

    • The quality of individual studies will be appraised using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool.

    • This scoping review will follow the Arksey and O’Malley framework and its extension, and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance.

    • Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklists will be used to report the results and findings.

    • We will search the literature from 2010 to the present.

    Introduction

    Intensive care unit (ICU) usage and capacity have grown significantly over the past decade, largely due to an increasingly ageing population.1 Virtually half of ICU admissions comprise older adults, and 60% of patients with sepsis in ICU are aged older than 65 years.2 This is likely to be worsened in the current COVID-19 pandemic, it was reported that 20% of confirmed cases demand ICU care.3 To accommodate higher demand, ICU capacity has surged internationally, generating an ever-increasing cohort of ICU admissions.4–6 Nonetheless, owing to advances in ICU technology and care, the survival rate has increased considerably in ICUs7–9 and the focus has shifted gradually to the long-term outcomes of survivors.3 8–10 However, the effect of long-term complications after critical illness is overwhelming and multidimensional so ICU survivorship can have profound consequences. Potentially life-threatening illness, intensive and stressful treatments and illness experiences, and longer ICU stays have been associated with a variety of new or worsening long-term impairments in physical, psychological, cognitive and/or social functioning, which are collectively known as postintensive care syndrome (PICS),8 11 12 which may persist for more than 5 years.8 11–14

    Yuan et al, in a concept analysis, proposed PICS as a co-occurrence of these physical, psychological, cognitive and social impairments.15 Around 50%–80% of admissions survive an ICU stay8 16 and the prevalence of PICS can reach 80% of survivors.8 9 17–19 Not only do individuals experience a deteriorated quality of life,20 but health systems confront enormous challenges related to treatment, care and support for those with PICS.3 21 Thus, detecting PICS among patients at risk and preventing them from deteriorating is a pressing matter, though it has been impeded by an absence of universally agreed PICS diagnostic criteria.22 23 The Society of Critical Care Medicine24 recommended a battery of instruments (eight) to evaluate each domain of PICS. Spies et al25 also proposed a set of PICS outcomes instruments (11), though these differ with regard to each domain.

    To inform the evaluation of PICS in future studies, we aim to investigate the characteristics of existing instruments used to measure PICS in ICU adults. Considering the high heterogeneity of PICS instruments, a scoping review is a robust method to address this aim. A preliminary search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and PubMed to identify whether scoping or systematic reviews had examined PICS instruments revealed two studies which differed from our focus: a scoping review of PICS instruments in the paediatric population26 and a systematic review of prediction models for impairments after critical illness.27

    Methods and analysis

    Protocol

    This protocol followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA) checklists and has been registered through Open Science Framework (Registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO /G76PE).

    Study design

    Since type of instruments to measure PICS appeared to vary and their use appeared inconsistent,24 25 28 29 a scoping review was deemed an appropriate method for our study aims as it maps the literature to address a broad question, identify primary sources and clarify concepts.30 31 This scoping review will follow the framework of Arksey and O’Malley,32 an extension to this33 and the updated guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI).31 We will conduct the review in five key steps: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) selecting the studies, (4) charting the data and (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results.33 In addition, we will report the findings following the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklists.34

    The study team comprises a doctoral student with ICU nursing expertise, a specialist librarian and two professors of nursing.

    Step 1: identifying the research question

    We aim to identify existent PICS instruments and their characteristics, including domains measured, timing of administration, duration, validity and reliability. The research question is as follows: What existing instruments are used to measure PICS outcomes among ICU adults? Therefore, the objectives are (1) To investigate instruments available to measure PICS outcomes among adult patients, (2) To describe the characteristics of such instruments regarding domains (physical, psychological, cognitive and/or social) measured, mode and timing of administration, duration for completion, and their psychometric properties: validity and reliability, and (3) To identify research gaps and inform future research studies.

    Step 2: identifying relevant studies

    We will follow the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) guideline to formulate the search strategy in the following steps35: (1) Translation of the research question, (2) Boolean and proximity operator, (3) Subject headings (database-specific), (4) Text word search, (5) Spelling, syntax and line numbers and (6) Limits and filter. In addition, a specialist librarian and team members will peer-review the search strategy.

    First, according to the research questions, we will divide the questions into three main concepts: ICU, PICS and instrument (table 1). PICS theoretical framework has four domains; ‘physical’, ‘psychological’, ‘cognitive’ and ‘social’.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Search terms related to the three concepts

    Second, we will expand key concepts by applying synonyms, wildcards and truncation. Simultaneously, we will employ the Boolean operator to combine the key search terms and MeSH in database searching. Following the PRESS guideline,35 we piloted searched two online databases (Medline and Embase) to set up keywords and search string,30 which will be used to guide the full database search. The preliminary search results in Medline via EBSCO are shown in table 2.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Search results in Medline via EBSCO

    The databases to be searched for this review include Medline via EBSCO, CINAHL complete, EMBASE, Web of Science, AME and APA PsycINFO. In addition, we will manually search reference lists of included studies for additional sources, and search grey literature from the following websites: ClinicalTrials.gov, the Health Services Delivery Research Programme of the National Institute for Health Research (http://www.netscc.ac.uk/hsdr/), NHS Evidence by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (http://evidence.nhs.uk/), Nursing and Allied Health Resource Section, NAHRS (http://sites.google.com/site/nahrsnursingresources) and Google (www.google.com). All citations will be imported to EndNote (V.20.1, Clarivate, Philadelphia, USA), where a solid duplicate procedure will be applied to remove duplicates.

    Step 3: study selection

    After duplication removal, all citations of the literature search will be entered into the Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, VIC, Australia) primary screening and extraction tool. Two researchers will independently select the citations in three steps: (1) title and abstract screening; (2) full-text review and (3) extraction in Covidence. We will inform the creation of inclusion criteria in line with the Population (or Participants), Concept and Context framework of the JBI guideline29 (table 3). At the title and abstract stage, the review will include ICU adult (≥18 years of age). Due to the concept of PICS having four domains, we will expand the criteria to a broad range of physical, psychological, cognitive and social domains. However, as PICS was initially introduced in 2010, we will restrict data from then until the present. In addition, we will include studies that examine PICS in all contexts, including ICUs, recovery centres, rehabilitation, outpatient, home care, community care, hospitals or other healthcare settings, without any restrictions on geography, culture, race or sex. As a result of insufficient funding and translation sources, we will not include non-English publications. At the full-text level, one researcher will contact corresponding authors to obtain full-text papers available if there is no full report online available. These abstracts will not be included if there is no peer-reviewed published evidence or author response. In addition, as the review aims to identify instruments, studies will be included regardless of data analysis taking place, but we will exclude studies without instrument usage.

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Inclusion and exclusion criteria

    The inclusion and exclusion criteria for each stage (table 3) will be prewritten into Covidence, and researchers blindly screen the citations based on it. In the first stage, the titles and abstracts will be independently screened by the two reviewers (YC and FT) against the inclusion criteria. If conflicts arise, articles will be entered into the full-text screening for further scrutiny. In the full-text screening stage, the selected citations will be screened by the same two reviewers (YC and FT). If there are disagreements during the selection process, a third reviewer (DT) will join in, and we will discuss and resolve them together. The inclusion/exclusion criteria will be agreed by the research team reaching a consensus. The results of the searches will be reported in full in the final scoping review and presented in a PRISMA-ScR flow diagram (figure 1). In addition, although it is optional, we will use the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool (V.1.4)36 to appraise the quality of included studies.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Flow chart for the selection process.

    Steps 4: charting the data

    The included studies will be extracted by one reviewer (YC) and cross-checked with a second reviewer (DT.) using Microsoft Word, according to the JBI data extraction template.29 The objective of this scoping review is to identify the existing PICS instruments. We will include the following aspects: data on study characteristics such as country, year, authors, research design, methodology, context, study population and the studies’ follow-up rates (if applicable); we will also extract information on instruments and their characteristics, including use, administration methods, time frame, collection duration, cut-off value of individual instrument (if applicable), validity and reliability. We piloted a small sample of articles among our team to test the appropriateness of the data charting form.

    Step 5: collating, summarising and reporting the results

    We will report the results using PRISMA-ScR checklists.34 Three reviewers will check the reporting items (YC, FT and DT.) in case any are missing. In terms of data extraction on study characteristics, we will provide a tabulated overview, along with a narrative description, using percentages or proportions. In reporting data on instrument characteristics, we will also display this in a tabular format, where appropriate; the tables will be divided by the similarity and differences of the instruments. The assessment of study quality will be reported in the data collation part. The final aim of this review is to identify gaps in the research literature pertaining to instruments used to measure PICS. Limitations of this scoping review will also be reported.

    Patient and public involvement

    No patients involved in developing the scoping review design. We plan to disseminate results of the scoping review through the corresponding author’s department social media.

    Ethics and dissemination

    Ethical approval is not required for this scoping review as the primary studies included in the review have been published. The authors aim to disseminate the findings from this scoping review through social media platforms, conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.

    Conclusion

    This scoping review will synthesise and summarise the type and characteristics instruments used to measure PICS among ICU adult patients. It is envisaged this will serve to inform the use of such instruments by clinical practitioners and researchers, and help identify any research gaps.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Acknowledgments

    We would like to acknowledge University College Dublin and the Chinese Grants Council, who provided the (UCD) China Scholarship Scheme that supported this project.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Chang AY,
      2. Skirbekk VF,
      3. Tyrovolas S, et al
      . Measuring population ageing: an analysis of the global burden of disease study 2017. Lancet Public Health 2019;4:e159–67.doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30019-2pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30851869
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. Riegel B,
      2. Huang L,
      3. Mikkelsen ME, et al
      . Early Post-Intensive care syndrome among older adult sepsis survivors receiving home care. J Am Geriatr Soc 2019;67:520–6.doi:10.1111/jgs.15691pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30500988
      OpenUrlPubMed
    3. ↵
      1. Stam HJ,
      2. Stucki G,
      3. Bickenbach J, et al
      . Covid-19 and post intensive care syndrome: a call for action. J Rehabil Med 2020;52:jrm00044.doi:10.2340/16501977-2677pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32286675
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    4. ↵
      1. Alqahtani F,
      2. Khan A,
      3. Alowais J, et al
      . Bed surge capacity in Saudi hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Disaster Med Public Health Prep 2021:1–7.doi:10.1017/dmp.2021.117pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33866983
      OpenUrlPubMed
    5. ↵
      1. Litton E,
      2. Bucci T,
      3. Chavan S, et al
      . Surge capacity of intensive care units in case of acute increase in demand caused by COVID-19 in Australia. Med J Aust 2020;212:463–7.doi:10.5694/mja2.50596pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32306408
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    6. ↵
      1. Cammarota G,
      2. Ragazzoni L,
      3. Capuzzi F, et al
      . Critical care surge capacity to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: a rapid and affordable solution in the Novara Hospital. Prehosp Disaster Med 2020;35:431–3.doi:10.1017/S1049023X20000692pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32423513
      OpenUrlPubMed
    7. ↵
      1. Iwashyna TJ
      . Survivorship will be the defining challenge of critical care in the 21st century. Ann Intern Med 2010;153:204–5.doi:10.7326/0003-4819-153-3-201008030-00013pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679565
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    8. ↵
      1. Needham DM,
      2. Davidson J,
      3. Cohen H, et al
      . Improving long-term outcomes after discharge from intensive care unit: report from a stakeholders' conference. Crit Care Med 2012;40:502–9.doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e318232da75pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21946660
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      1. Inoue S,
      2. Hatakeyama J,
      3. Kondo Y, et al
      . Post-intensive care syndrome: its pathophysiology, prevention, and future directions. Acute Med Surg 2019;6:233–46.doi:10.1002/ams2.415pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31304024
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Elliott D,
      2. Davidson JE,
      3. Harvey MA, et al
      . Exploring the scope of post-intensive care syndrome therapy and care: engagement of non-critical care providers and survivors in a second stakeholders meeting. Crit Care Med 2014;42:2518–26.doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000000525pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25083984
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Hanifa ALB,
      2. Glæemose AO,
      3. Laursen BS
      . Picking up the pieces: qualitative evaluation of follow-up consultations post intensive care admission. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2018;48:85–91.doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2018.06.004pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30033216
      OpenUrlPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Kang J,
      2. Jeong YJ
      . Embracing the new vulnerable self: a grounded theory approach on critical care survivors' post-intensive care syndrome. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2018;49:44–50.doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2018.08.004pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30193868
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    13. ↵
      1. Cuthbertson BH,
      2. Roughton S,
      3. Jenkinson D, et al
      . Quality of life in the five years after intensive care: a cohort study. Crit Care 2010;14:1–12.doi:10.1186/cc8848pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20089197
      OpenUrlPubMed
    14. ↵
      1. Hill AD,
      2. Fowler RA,
      3. Pinto R, et al
      . Long-Term outcomes and healthcare utilization following critical illness – a population-based study. Crit Care 2016;20:1–10.doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1248-y
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    15. ↵
      1. Yuan C,
      2. Timmins F,
      3. Thompson DR
      . Post-intensive care syndrome: a concept analysis. Int J Nurs Stud 2021;114:103814.doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103814pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33220570
      OpenUrlPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Kim DY,
      2. Lee MH,
      3. Lee SY,
      4. Yang BR, et al
      . Survival rates following medical intensive care unit admission from 2003 to 2013: an observational study based on a representative population-based sample cohort of Korean patients. Medicine 2019;98:e17090.doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000017090pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31517831
      OpenUrlPubMed
    17. ↵
      1. Kosilek RP,
      2. Schmidt K,
      3. Baumeister SE, et al
      . Frequency and risk factors of post-intensive care syndrome components in a multicenter randomized controlled trial of German sepsis survivors. J Crit Care 2021;65:268–73.doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2021.07.006pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34280656
      OpenUrlPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Martillo MA,
      2. Dangayach NS,
      3. Tabacof L, et al
      . Postintensive care syndrome in survivors of critical illness related to coronavirus disease 2019: cohort study from a new York City critical care recovery clinic. Crit Care Med 2021;49:1427–38.doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000005014pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33769771
      OpenUrlPubMed
    19. ↵
      1. Nanwani-Nanwani K,
      2. López-Pérez L,
      3. Giménez-Esparza C, et al
      . Prevalence of post-intensive care syndrome in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Sci Rep 2022;12:1–11.doi:10.1038/s41598-022-11929-8
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    20. ↵
      1. Geense WW,
      2. de Graaf M,
      3. Vermeulen H, et al
      . Reduced quality of life in ICU survivors - the story behind the numbers: A mixed methods study. J Crit Care 2021;65:36–41.doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2021.05.008pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34082253
      OpenUrlPubMed
    21. ↵
      1. Griffiths J,
      2. Hatch RA,
      3. Bishop J, et al
      . An exploration of social and economic outcome and associated health-related quality of life after critical illness in general intensive care unit survivors: a 12-month follow-up study. Crit Care 2013;17:1–12.doi:10.1186/cc12745pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23714692
      OpenUrlPubMed
    22. ↵
      1. Proffitt T,
      2. Menzies V
      . Relationship of symptoms associated with ICU-survivorship: an integrative literature review. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2019;53:60–7.doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2019.02.004pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30878537
      OpenUrlPubMed
    23. ↵
      1. Marra A,
      2. Pandharipande PP,
      3. Girard TD, et al
      . Co-Occurrence of post-intensive care syndrome problems among 406 survivors of critical illness. Crit Care Med 2018;46:1393.doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000003218pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29787415
      OpenUrlPubMed
    24. ↵
      1. Mikkelsen ME,
      2. Still M,
      3. Anderson BJ, et al
      . Society of critical care medicine's international consensus conference on prediction and identification of long-term impairments after critical illness. Crit Care Med 2020;48:1670–9.doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000004586pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32947467
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    25. ↵
      1. Spies CD,
      2. Krampe H,
      3. Paul N, et al
      . Instruments to measure outcomes of post-intensive care syndrome in outpatient care settings - Results of an expert consensus and feasibility field test. J Intensive Care Soc 2021;22:159–74.doi:10.1177/1751143720923597pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34025756
      OpenUrlPubMed
    26. ↵
      1. Maddux AB,
      2. Pinto N,
      3. Fink EL, et al
      . Postdischarge outcome domains in pediatric critical care and the instruments used to evaluate them: a scoping review. Crit Care Med 2020;48:e1313–21.doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000004595pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33009099
      OpenUrlPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Haines KJ,
      2. Hibbert E,
      3. McPeake J, et al
      . Prediction models for physical, cognitive, and mental health impairments after critical illness: a systematic review and critical appraisal. Crit Care Med 2020;48:1871–80.doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000004659pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33060502
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    28. ↵
      1. Turnbull AE,
      2. Rabiee A,
      3. Davis WE, et al
      . Outcome measurement in ICU survivorship research from 1970 to 2013: a scoping review of 425 publications. Crit Care Med 2016;44:1267.doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001651pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26992067
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. ↵
      1. Robinson KA,
      2. Davis WE,
      3. Dinglas VD, et al
      . A systematic review finds limited data on measurement properties of instruments measuring outcomes in adult intensive care unit survivors. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;82:37–46.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.014pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27865899
      OpenUrlPubMed
    30. ↵
      1. Pollock D,
      2. Davies EL,
      3. Peters MDJ, et al
      . Undertaking a scoping review: a practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics. J Adv Nurs 2021;77:2102–13.doi:10.1111/jan.14743pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33543511
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    31. ↵
      1. Peters MDJ,
      2. Marnie C,
      3. Tricco AC, et al
      . Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth 2020;18:2119–26.doi:10.11124/JBIES-20-00167pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33038124
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    32. ↵
      1. Arksey H,
      2. O'Malley L
      . Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8:19–32.doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    33. ↵
      1. Levac D,
      2. Colquhoun H,
      3. O'Brien KK
      . Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science 2010;5:1–9.doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
      OpenUrl
    34. ↵
      1. Tricco AC,
      2. Lillie E,
      3. Zarin W, et al
      . PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:467–73.doi:10.7326/M18-0850pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30178033
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    35. ↵
      1. McGowan J,
      2. Sampson M,
      3. Salzwedel DM, et al
      . PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;75:40–6.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27005575
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    36. ↵
      1. Crowe M
      . Crowe critical appraisal tool (CCAT) user guide. Scotland, UK: Conchra House, 2013.

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @twh1976

    • Contributors YC, FT and DT conceived the review. YC designed the protocol. YC and JE-C conducted the search. YC, FT and DT contributed to the final manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests YC is a recipient of a University College Dublin (UCD) China Scholarship Scheme.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.