Achron as an operational complement to PRISMA-ScR in scoping reviews: a conceptual proposal to strengthen internal traceability
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47606/ACVEN/MV0339Keywords:
ACHRON, PRISMA-ScR, scoping review, traceability, narrative synthesisAbstract
Introduction: Scoping reviews are particularly relevant in broad, emerging, or terminologically unstable fields because they make it possible to organize the available evidence, delimit concepts, and identify research gaps. Although the Joanna Briggs Institute has promoted the methodological development of these reviews and PRISMA-ScR has contributed to improving the transparency of their reporting, a less visible issue remains within the methodological process: the internal documentation of the decisions that support the review, including the harmonization of terms, the identification of discrepancies among reviewers, and the establishment of criteria for organizing the information that will underpin the narrative synthesis. Objective: In response to this methodological gap, this study proposes an analysis of ACHRON as a complementary conceptual and operational model that, when integrated with PRISMA-ScR, seeks to support the documentation of traceability from the planning stage through to the final synthesis. Materials and Methods: Its six stages—Audit, Capture, Harmonize, Track, Organize, and Narrate—could guide a systematic process of documentation and justification, thereby making the review process more auditable. Results: To illustrate its application, a hypothetical protocol is presented on healthcare professionals’ perceptions of complementary medicine, integrative medicine, and nutritional supplements in neurodegenerative diseases. Conclusions: This proposal is not intended to replace the JBI guidance or PRISMA-ScR; rather, it is presented as a complementary methodological support tool that will require evaluation through future empirical applications.
Downloads
References
Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19-32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616
Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:143. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119-2126. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167
Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141-146. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050
Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2024. doi: 10.46658/JBIMES-24-09
Campbell F, Tricco AC, Munn Z, Pollock D, Saran A, Sutton A, et al. Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps: the same but different—the “Big Picture” review family. Syst Rev. 2023;12(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02178-5
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews: checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-473. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:15. doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4
Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Colquhoun H, Garritty CM, Hempel S, Horsley T, et al. Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application. Syst Rev. 2021;10:263. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3
Pollock D, Peters MDJ, Khalil H, McInerney P, Alexander L, Tricco AC, et al. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2023;21(3):520-532. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-22-00123
Chafloque-Capuñay JE, Juárez-Jiménez PL, Quintana del Solar CI, Hurtado-Yugcha JDP, Avalos-Marquez MH. Evaluación preliminar del método ACHRON como modelo didáctico para escritura académica con inteligencia artificial generativa. PROHOMINUM Rev Cienc Soc Humanas. 2026;8(1):271-288. doi: 10.47606/ACVEN/PH0441
Huarachi Chuquimia G, Gonzales Velásquez EA, Sánchez-Luján BI, Juárez Jiménez VB, Ipurre Maldonado H, Tunque Lizana MA, et al. Búsqueda y selección de antecedentes de investigación: ruta general y enfoque ACHRON para localizar, filtrar y organizar evidencia científica. Arco Editores; 2026. doi: 10.48209/978-65-5417-683-5
Orbegoso Leiva FCL, Arredondo Castillo G, Ponce Bardales ZE, Lévano Sarmiento RA, Uría Sánchez MB, Juárez Jiménez PL, et al. Redacción y análisis de antecedentes de investigación: de la matriz de antecedentes a la síntesis, brechas y justificación del estudio. Arco Editores; 2026. doi: 10.48209/978-65-5417-684-2
Quintana del Solar C, Juárez Jiménez PL, Ponce Bardales JD, Zúñiga Valencia EG, Reséndiz Cedillo A, Garay Flores GV, et al. Método ACHRON y construcción de la tesis: coherencia metodológica para pregrado y maestría. Arco Editores; 2026. doi: 10.48209/978-65-5417-674-3
Westphaln KK, Regoeczi W, Masotya M, Vazquez-Westphaln B, Lounsbury K, McDavid L, et al. From Arksey and O’Malley and beyond: customizations to enhance a team-based, mixed approach to scoping review methodology. MethodsX. 2021;8:101375. doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2021.101375
Pollock D, Davies EL, Peters MDJ, Tricco AC, Alexander L, McInerney P, et al. Undertaking a scoping review: a practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(4):2102-2113. doi:10.1111/jan.14743
Trapé CA, Sivalli Campos CM, de Freitas Oliveira C, Tavares da Silva JGS, Uchimura LYT, Figueiró MF, et al. Scoping review of evidence synthesis: concepts, types and methods. PLoS One. 2025;20(5):e0323555. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323555
Khalil H, Peters M, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Parker D. An evidence-based approach to scoping reviews. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2016;13(2):118-123. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12144
Moser A, Korstjens I. Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 7: qualitative evidence synthesis for emerging themes in primary care research: scoping review, meta-ethnography and rapid realist review. Eur J Gen Pract. 2023;29(1):2274467. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2023.2274467
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 José Eugenio Chafloque-Capuñay, Haroldo Alcides Pino-Valencia, Carmen Inocencia Quintana-del Solar , Hugo Ipurre-Maldonado , Magda Olivia Ibarra-Pop , Gina Eliana Salome-Maita
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
