Description:

This Master Prompt would focus on determining whether, why, and how critical appraisal should be incorporated into a scoping review and on characterizing methodological limitations of the mapped evidence without converting the review into a conventional systematic review. It would guide researchers in distinguishing formal risk-of-bias assessment from broader description of study designs, methodological characteristics, reporting limitations, and evidence maturity.

A major emphasis would be placed on avoiding the assumption that formal quality appraisal is mandatory for every scoping review. Researchers would justify appraisal according to the review purpose and methodological framework, select design-appropriate tools when appraisal is undertaken, and clearly distinguish evidence quantity, evidence characteristics, methodological quality, and certainty of evidence. This distinction is supported directly by the uploaded studies: some undertake quality appraisal, whereas others explicitly state that formal risk-of-bias assessment was not performed because of the scoping-review methodology.