Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the ‘scoping review’. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for ‘reconnaissance’ – to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.

With the increase in the number of systematic reviews available, a logical next step to provide decision makers in healthcare with the evidence they require has been the conduct of reviews of existing systematic reviews. Syntheses of existing systematic reviews are referred to by many different names, one of which is an umbrella review. An umbrella review allows the findings of reviews relevant to a review question to be compared and contrasted. An umbrella review's most characteristic feature is that this type of evidence synthesis only considers for inclusion the highest level of evidence, namely other systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A methodology working group was formed by the Joanna Briggs Institute to develop methodological guidance for the conduct of an umbrella review, including diverse types of evidence, both quantitative and qualitative. The aim of this study is to describe the development and guidance for the conduct of an umbrella review. Discussion and testing of the elements of methods for the conduct of an umbrella review were held over a 6-month period by members of a methodology working group. The working group comprised six participants who corresponded via teleconference, e-mail and face-to-face meeting during this development period. In October 2013, the methodology was presented in a workshop at the Joanna Briggs Institute Convention. Workshop participants, review authors and methodologists provided further testing, critique and feedback on the proposed methodology. This study describes the methodology and methods developed for the conduct of an umbrella review that includes published systematic reviews and meta-analyses as the analytical unit of the review. Details are provided regarding the essential elements of an umbrella review, including presentation of the review question in a Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format, nuances of the inclusion criteria and search strategy. A critical appraisal tool with 10 questions to help assess risk of bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was also developed and tested. Relevant details to extract from included reviews and how to best present the findings of both quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews in a reader friendly format are provided. Umbrella reviews provide a ready means for decision makers in healthcare to gain a clear understanding of a broad topic area. The umbrella review methodology described here is the first to consider reviews that report other than quantitative evidence derived from randomized controlled trials. The methodology includes an easy to use and informative summary of evidence table to readily provide decision makers with the available, highest level of evidence relevant to the question posed.

Background: Medication-related adverse events, or adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are harmful events caused by medication. ADRs could have profound effects on the patients’ quality of life, as well as creating an increased burden on the healthcare system. ADRs are one of the rising causes of morbidity and mortality internationally, and will continue to be a significant public health issue with the increased complexity in medication, to treat various diseases in an aging society. This scoping review aims to provide a detailed map of the most common adverse drug reactions experienced in primary healthcare setting, the drug classes that are most commonly associated with different levels/types of adverse drug reactions, causes of ADRs, their prevalence and consequences of experiencing ADRs. Methods: We systematically reviewed electronic databases Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO and Scopus. In addition, the National Patient Safety Foundation Bibliography and the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality and Patient Safety Net Bibliography were searched. Studies published from 1990 onwards until December 7, 2018 were included as the incidence of reporting drug reactions were not prevalent before 1990. We only include studies published in English. Results: The final search yielded a total of 19 citations for inclusion published over a 15-year period that primarily focused on investigating the different types of adverse drug reactions in primary healthcare. The most causes of adverse events were related to drug related and allergies. Idiosyncratic adverse reactions were not very commonly reported. The most common adverse drug reactions reported in the studies included in this review were those that are associated with the central nervous system, gastrointestinal system and cardiovascular system. Several classes of medications were reported to be associated with adverse events. Conclusion: This scoping review identified that the most causes of ADRs were drug related and due to allergies. Idiosyncratic adverse reactions were not very commonly reported in the literature. This is mainly because it is hard to predict and these reactions are not associated with drug doses or routes of administration. The most common ADRs reported in the studies included in this review were those that are associated with the central nervous system, gastrointestinal system and cardiovascular system. Several classes of medications were reported to be associated with ADRs.