Demo corpus. Scores are computed on a select set of biomedical paper/datasets and may be inaccurate for papers outside this corpus — DataRank relies on network effects that improve with scale. We aim to expand this into a fully open resource pending additional funding.

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Annals of Internal Medicine(2018)10.7326/m18-0850Source: DataRank Database

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation is a research paper published in Annals of Internal Medicine (2018). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 1.6. It has been cited 38,576 times.

N/A

1.6DataRank · unranked

1.6

38576 citations · base score 10.6

Cite:

datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6· scope data_onlyMethodology

Abstract

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

›Data sources & pipeline

Pipeline:MetadataData-paper checkEnrichmentCitation networkScoring

Enrichment:Pending

FAIR Checklist

Context only (not used in score)

Findable (1/2)

Has DOI

Accessible (0/2)

Interoperable (0/2)

Reusable (0/3)

FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.

Run a calibrated FAIR evaluation for this paper →

DataRank Breakdown

Base Score 100%Citation Network 0%

Base Score Contribution

1.6

From this paper's citation signal

Citation Network Contribution

Citation network not refreshed for this result

This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. Citation network data was not refreshed for this result.

Learn more about DataRank methodology →

Why this DataRank?

DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 100% comes from its base citations and 0% from the citation network.

Base score B(p): log1p(citation_count) — grows sub-linearly, so a paper with 1,000 citations is not 10× a paper with 100.
Network N(p): Σ over citers of log1p(C_q) ÷ max(outdegree_q, 1). Being cited by a highly-cited paper with few references counts most.
Damping factor d = 0.85: DataRank = (1−d)·B(p) + d·N(p) — the two cards above are each already multiplied by their share.
Self-citations excluded: Citers sharing any OpenAlex author ID with this paper are filtered out before the network sum.

Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.

Read the full methodology →