Martínez-Palacios, Karol http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1967-4761
Vásquez-García, Sebastián http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2572-1763
Fariyike, Olubunmi A. http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9626-3144
Robba, Chiara http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1628-3845
Rubiano, Andrés M. http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8931-3254
Taccone, Fabio Silvio
Rasulo, Frank
Badenes, R Rafael
Menon, David
Sarwal, A Aarti
Cardim, D Danilo
Czosnyka, Marek
Hirzallah, Mohammad
Geeraerts, Thomas
Bouzat, Pierre
Lochner, Pier G.
Aries, Marcel
Wong, Yu Lin
Abulhassan, Yasser
Sung, Gene
Prabhakar, Hemanshu
Shrestha, Gentle
Bustamante, Luis
Jibaja, Manuel
Pinedo, Juan
Sanchez, Diana
Mendez, Julio Mijangos
Vásquez, Franly
Shukla, Dhaval P.
Worku, Getaw
Tirsit, Abenezer
Indiradevi, Bhagavatula
Shabani, Hamisi
Adeleye, Amos
Munusamy, Thangaraj
Ain, Amelia
Paiva, Wellingson
Godoy, Daniel
Brasil, Sérgio
Robba, Chiara
Rubiano, Andrés
Vásquez-García, Sebastián
,
Funding for this research was provided by:
Universidad El Bosque
Article History
Received: 2 May 2023
Accepted: 19 October 2023
First Online: 19 December 2023
Conflict of interest
: There are no conflicts of interest to report in this project.
: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews []. Although a protocol was written before beginning the review, the protocol was not published due to project time constraints. A total of two databases (PubMed and EMBASE) were searched, with initial search strategy formation being undertaken in PubMed. The final searches were completed in June of 2022, yielding 106 studies for review. All identified citations were collated and uploaded into Covidence, and one duplicated study was removed. Studies were screened by two independent researchers (KM and SV) and one collaborator (OF). After examining 105 titles and abstracts for inclusion, 74 irrelevant studies were removed, 31 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility, and 15 studies were excluded for reasons described in Fig. . Any conflicts that arose in the selection process were resolved by a tie-breaking vote from the third member who did not participate in the initial vote. The results of the search are reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist []. Data were extracted from included studies by all three researchers using a data extraction tool developed in the protocol and modified after initial review of the articles to present data in the clearest manner (Table ). After two researchers completed extraction, consensus was achieved by mediation between the two researchers involved. In accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews specifically, included studies were not reviewed for quality or risk of bias.