Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process.

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 studies (or reviews) are a method used to comprehensively map evidence across a range of study designs in an area, with the aim of informing future research practice, programs and policy. However, no universal agreement exists on terminology, definition or methodological steps. Our aim was to understand the experiences of, and considerations for conducting scoping studies from the perspective of academic and community partners. Primary objectives were to 1) describe experiences conducting scoping studies including strengths and challenges; and 2) describe perspectives on terminology, definition, and methodological steps. We conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey with clinicians, educators, researchers, knowledge users, representatives from community-based organizations, graduate students, and policy stakeholders with experience and/or interest in conducting scoping studies to gain an understanding of experiences and perspectives on the conduct and reporting of scoping studies. We administered an electronic self-reported questionnaire comprised of 22 items related to experiences with scoping studies, strengths and challenges, opinions on terminology, and methodological steps. We analyzed questionnaire data using descriptive statistics and content analytical techniques. Survey results were discussed during a multi-stakeholder consultation to identify key considerations in the conduct and reporting of scoping studies. Of the 83 invitations, 54 individuals (65 %) completed the scoping questionnaire, and 48 (58 %) attended the scoping study meeting from Canada, the United Kingdom and United States. Many scoping study strengths were dually identified as challenges including breadth of scope, and iterative process. No consensus on terminology emerged, however key defining features that comprised a working definition of scoping studies included the exploratory mapping of literature in a field; iterative process, inclusion of grey literature; no quality assessment of included studies, and an optional consultation phase. We offer considerations for the conduct and reporting of scoping studies for researchers, clinicians and knowledge users engaging in this methodology. Lack of consensus on scoping terminology, definition and methodological steps persists. Reasons for this may be attributed to diversity of disciplines adopting this methodology for differing purposes. Further work is needed to establish guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality assessment of scoping studies.

People with HIV are living longer with the health-related consequences of HIV, multi-morbidity, and aging. Exercise is a key strategy that may improve or sustain health for people living with HIV. Our aim was to examine the safety and effectiveness of aerobic exercise interventions on immunological, virological, cardiorespiratory, strength, weight, body composition, and psychological outcomes in adults living with HIV. We conducted a systematic review using the Cochrane Collaboration protocol. We searched databases up to April 2013. We included randomized controlled trials comparing aerobic exercise with no exercise or another intervention performed at least three times per week for at least four weeks among adults living with HIV. Two reviewers independently determined study eligibility. Data were extracted from studies that met inclusion criteria using standardized forms. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias. Outcomes were analyzed as continuous and meta-analyses conducted using random effects models with Review Manager (RevMan) computer software. Twenty-four studies met inclusion criteria (n = 936 participants at study completion); the majority of participants were men (73 %) and the majority were taking antiretroviral therapy (19/24 included studies). The exercise intervention included aerobic exercise alone (11 studies) or a combination of aerobic and resistive exercise (13 studies) ranging from 5 to 52 weeks. Fifty-eight meta-analyses were performed. Main results indicated statistically significant improvements in selected outcomes of cardiorespiratory status (maximum oxygen consumption, exercise time), strength (chest press, knee flexion), body composition (lean body mass, percent body fat, leg muscle area), depression symptoms, and quality of life (SF-36 questionnaire) among exercisers compared with non-exercisers. No significant differences in change in CD4 count and viral load were found. Performing aerobic exercise or a combination of aerobic and resistive exercise at least three times per week for at least five weeks is safe and can lead to improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness, strength, body composition and quality of life for adults with HIV. Aerobic exercise is safe and beneficial for adults living with HIV who are medically stable.

Since the advent of combination antiretroviral therapy, in developed countries HIV increasingly is perceived as a long-term illness. Individuals may experience health-related consequences of HIV and its associated treatments, a concept that may be termed disability. To date, a comprehensive framework for understanding the health-related consequences experienced by people living with HIV has not been developed. The purpose of this research was to develop a conceptual framework of disability from the perspective of adults living with HIV.