Scoping reviews highlight diverse evidence, suggesting transparency in method over scoring quality in research.
Key Points Scoping reviews are exploratory by design and aim to map diverse evidence, not to evaluate or rank study quality. The QuADS tool, designed for empirical mixed‐methods studies, is conceptually misaligned with the epistemically inclusive aims of scoping reviews. Using numerical quality scores risks privileging empirical research and marginalising conceptual, normative, or policy‐based contributions. Transparency in scoping reviews can instead be achieved through reflexive, content‐sensitive reporting practices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tove Godskesen (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: