Narrow Results

Cross-sectional studies on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM-CSs) have become the most published type of TCM observational study; however, the research scope of current TCM-CSs is unknown. A scoping review of the literature was performed. A descriptive approach to summarize the core study characteristics was prepared, along with structured tables and figures to identify salient points of similarities and differences noted across studies. The reporting quality of TCM-CSs was assessed according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) cross-sectional checklist. Eight databases (Embase, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, AMED, CBM, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP) were systematically searched for TCM-CSs published up until 20 January 2020. The literature screening and evaluating were independently conducted by two researchers. When there was disagreement, a third-party senior researcher made the judgment. A total of 198 TCM-CSs published between 1997 and 2019 were included, 160 English studies and 38 Chinese studies, respectively. More TCM-CSs were published in each successive year. The journal Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine published more TCM-CSs (24) than any other journal. Most TCM-CSs were conducted in mainland China (81, 40.9%), followed by Taiwan, China (44, 22.2%) and HKSAR, China (19, 9.6%). The most commonly used sampling method was purposive sampling (94, 47.5%), following by convenience sampling (60, 30.3%). The research topics can be summarized in four major categories as follows: constitution-related research (11.1%), TCM pattern-related research (18.7%), TCM intervention-related research (55.1%), and others (15.6%). The average sufficient reporting rate of included TCM-CSs according to the STROBE cross-sectional checklist was 45.6%. Papers written in English reported 9 items (items 2, 4, 14a, 16a, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22) more frequently than papers written in Chinese. The number of TCM-CSs is increasing. Research topics are diverse; however, the reporting quality is unsatisfactory. In particular, TCM-CSs need greater transparency and standardization.

The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and describe the current body of evidence on internal fracture fixation devices that require compression screws. Electronic literature searches were conducted and 665 unique studies were included. Investigations on avulsion fractures represented a small proportion of these studies (45 studies), the remainder being those on patients with fractures with vascular compromise risk. The most common type of avulsion injury investigated was tibial avulsion fractures, followed by fifth metatarsal and calcaneal avulsions. For vascular compromised fractures, greater than half of the studies were on femoral neck injuries while scaphoid injury studies also represented a substantial proportion of this evidence base. Most of the studies were case series and there was limited randomized clinical trial evidence. A total of 429 studies provided sufficient information on the devices used in their investigation; DePuy-Synthes and Acumed ranked as the top two companies in cumulative publications over the last decade. There is a large body of evidence on internal fixation compression screw devices used in the management of fractures; however, the literature is generally dominated by non-comparative research studies. Opportunities to improve the evidence base are large. Manufacturer priority on evidence-based product development is key to ongoing research inquiry.

User engagement in innovation processes is crucial for the development of sustainable healthcare. One promising user-centred approach used to integrate users’ experiential knowledge in the development of innovations is the Living Lab (LL). However, we lack a systematic understanding of the processes, methods and factors that lead to more effective user engagement. The objective of this scoping review is to map and systematically present current research on user engagement in Healthcare Living Labs (HLLs) to enhance understanding and inspire future research. Our review shows that the level of user engagement is still low given the limited use of methods tailored to support it and that HLL are predominantly used in technology and clinical innovation. We offer a clearer depiction and description of the methods innovation managers could use to foster greater user engagement in HLL.

FinTech, the rapidly evolving new breed of technology-driven financial offerings, generates a renewed momentum by bringing together disconnected trends challenging incumbent financial services firms. In response to the increasing FinTech-enabled forces of technology innovation, process disruption, and services transformation, along with the fact that FinTech is gradually becoming an area of academic research, this chapter contributes to the innovation and technology management literature by (1) providing a mapping of current FinTech research and (2) suggesting a FinTech research agenda. A scoping review across six major databases has been conducted, leading to an N = 92 sample chosen and analyzed based on pre-determined selection criteria and according to the developed theoretical framework. The review illuminates observations with regards to the scope, conceptualization, topical themes, and research approaches revolving around extant FinTech scholarship, while providing novel and comprehensive knowledge on the underlying technology aspects, FinTech-enabled business models, and value-creation outcomes.

Gamification is defined differently in both research literature and among people. The purpose of this book chapter is to provide a detailed scoping review of the future of gamification in organizations. The first section provides an overview of the future of gamification in the business context. The second section provides an overview of the scoping review methodology and the third section illustrates the thematic analysis of gamification in organizations. The final section discusses the conclusion by providing implications for future researchers in the area of gamification in organizations. Gamification science is distinct not only from game science but also from non-scientific forms of gamification research. The purpose of gamification science is not to denounce nonscientific approaches to the study of gamification; instead, it establishes precise limits on the scope of the subfield. Gamification scientists seek to comprehend how games can be utilized to affect the attitudes, behaviors, and other states of being of humans. To further elucidate this position, we also provide a research agenda and framework for the study of gamification science.