Scoping reviews and structured research synthesis in sport: methods, protocol and lessons learnt

References

• Arksey, H. and O’Malley, L., 2005. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology, 8 (1), 19–32. BMJ evidence-based medicine, 23, 1212. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616.
   Google Scholar
• Booth, A., Sutton, A., and Papaioannou, D., 2013. Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Chalip, L., 2006. Toward a distinctive sport management discipline. Journal of sport management, 20, 1–21. doi:10.1123/jsm.20.1.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers, I. and Fox, D.M., 2016. Increasing the incidence and influence of systematic reviews on health policy and practice. American journal of public health, 106, 11–13. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302915
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciomaga, B., 2013. Sport management: A bibliometric study on central themes and trends. European sport management quarterly, 13 (5), 557–578. doi:10.1080/16184742.2013.838283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colquhoun, H.L., et al., 2014. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 67 (12), 1291–1294. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, H., Hedges, L.V., and Valentine, J.C., 2019. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 3rd ed. New York: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Daudt, H.M., van Mossel, C. and Scott, S.J., 2013. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: A large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC medical research methodology, 13 (1), 48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowling, M., Leopkey, B., and Smith, L., 2018. Governance in sport: A scoping review. Journal of sport management, 32 (5), 438–451. doi:10.1123/jsm.2018-0032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filo, K., Lock, D., and Karg, A., 2015. Sport and social media research: A review. Sport management review, 18, 166–181. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2014.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fink, A., 2019. Conducting research literature reviews: from the internet to paper. London: Sage publications.
   Google Scholar
• Forscher, B.K., 1963. Chaos in the brickyard. Science, 142 (3590), 339. doi:10.1126/science.142.3590.339
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant, M.J. and Booth, A., 2009. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information & libraries journal, 26 (2), 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammersely, M., 2013. Systematic or unsystematic, is that the question? Some reflections on the science, art, and politics of reviewing research evidence. In: M. Hammersley, ed. The myth of research-based policy & practice. London: Sage, 110–120.
   Google Scholar
• Inoue, Y., Berg, B.K., and Chelladurai, P., 2015. Spectator sport and population health: A scoping study. Journal of sport management, 29 (6), 705–725. doi:10.1123/JSM.2014-0283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joanna Briggs Institute, 2015. The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual 2015: methodology for JBI scoping reviews. Adelaide, Australia: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Khalil, H., et al., 2016. An evidence-based approach to scoping reviews. Worldviews on evidence-based nursing, 13 (2), 118–123. doi:10.1111/wvn.12144
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., and O’Brien, K.K., 2010. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation science, 5 (1), 69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher, D., et al., 2015. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic reviews, 4 (1), 3–9. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Munn, Z., et al., 2018. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC medical research methodology, 18 (1), art. 18. doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, M.D., et al., 2015. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International journal of evidence-based healthcare, 13 (3), 141–146. doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pham, M.T., et al., 2014. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research synthesis methods, 5 (4), 371–385. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PRISMA Group, n.d.. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Available from: http://www.prisma-statement.org/
   Google Scholar
• Simera, I., et al., 2010. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR network. BMC medicine, 8 (1), 24. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tacon, R. and Vainker, S., 2017. Fantasy sport: A systematic review and new research directions. European sport management quarterly, 17, 558–589. doi:10.1080/16184742.2017.1347192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tricco, A.C., et al., 2016. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC medical research methodology, 16 (1), 15. doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tricco, A.C., et al., 2018. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine, 169 (7), 467–473. doi:10.7326/M18-0850
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weed, M., 2005. Research synthesis in sport management: dealing with “chaos in the brickyard”. European sport management quarterly, 5, 77–90. doi:10.1080/16184740500089763
   Google Scholar