Notes

<img style="clear:both; float:left; padding:10px 10px 10px 0px;border:0px; max-width: 385px;" alt="Amazon Reviews for an $8000 Alienware Gaming Computer" src="http://i.imgur.com/D83UxDX.jpg" loading="lazy">The methodological characteristics of included scoping reviews are reported in Table 2. Approximately half of the reviews (50.6%; 174/344) reported using one or more methodological frameworks for carrying out the scoping review. Framework use varied greatly between reviews from different sectors, such as in 85.4% (35/41) of reviews from the software engineering sector and in 44.0% (89/202) of health sector reviews. Overall, the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) framework was the most frequently used, reported in 62.6% (109/174) of studies that reported using a framework. Among reviews from the software engineering sector that reported using a framework, frameworks by Kitchenham and Charters (2007) (40.0%; 14/35) and Petersen et al. 2008) (51.4%; 18/35) were most commonly employed. The use of a framework increased over time, from 31.6% (6/19) of reviews published from 2000 to 2004, to 42.5% (37/87) of reviews from 2005 to 2009, and to 55.3% (131/237) of reviews published from 2010 onward.
Following the search, 79.7% (174/344) of reviews used defined inclusion and exclusion criteria to screen out studies that were not relevant to the review question(s). Among these, only six reviews explicitly reported that criteria were redefined or amended on a post hoc basis during the review process (While et al., 2005; Marsella, 2009; Crooks et al., 2010; Johnston et al., 2010; Snyder et al., 2011; Victoor et al., 2012). The selection criteria in a few reviews were unclear due to ambiguous wording such as ‘real paper’ (Saraiva et al., 2012), ‘scientific papers’ (Victoor et al., 2012), and ‘culling low-interest articles’ (Catts et al., 2010). Compared with the study selection process, fewer details were generally reported about the data characterization (or charting) of individual studies. Nearly a quarter of reviews (23.8%; 82/344) did not report any detail as to how the included studies were characterized, and it was unclear in 33.4% (115/344) as to how many reviewers were involved.

The majority of included reviews (77.7%, 267/344) did not assess the methodological quality of individual studies. A number of these studies reported that quality assessment was not conducted as it is not a priority in scoping reviews or part of the scoping review methodology. The level of detail reported about the search strategy varied considerably across the reviews. Table 3 displays information about the search strategy reported in the included reviews by time. Overall, the detail of reporting for the search increased numerically over time. Table 4 summarizes how some of the results of the included reviews were reported and ‘charted’. A flow diagram was used to display the flow of articles from the initial search to final selection in 35.8% of reviews (123/344). Characteristics of included studies were often displayed in tables (82.9%; 285/344), ranging from basic tables that described the key characteristics of each included study, to cross-tabulation heat maps that used color-coding to highlight cell values. Study characteristics were also mapped graphically in 28.8% (99/344) of reviews, often in the form of histograms, scatterplots, or pie charts. Reviews from the software engineering sector frequently used bubble charts to map the data (Figure 2 is an example of a bubble chart). In summarizing the reviewed literature, 77.6% (267/344) of reviews noted gaps where little or no research had been conducted, and 77.9% (268/344) recommended topics or questions for future research. Stakeholder consultation is an optional sixth-step in the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) framework and was reported in 39.8% (137/344) of reviews. This optional step was reported in 34.9% (38/109) of reviews that used the Arksey and O'Malley framework, compared with 42.13% (99/235) of reviews that did not.

The roller coaster crew keeps all focus on finding a way to start the carts and saying everything’s fine when they really don’t know what to do, and the other kids, while constantly saying they were right about Eugene, keep watch ing their friends to ensure they’re ok. There’s also Eugene continuously staying positive, buying into the claims that the ride will be fixed soon, beaming at the prospect of him and Arnold getting rescued by a cherry picker, and never letting on how bad the situation is. It’s nice that he’s able to keep this calm, but Eugene’s hopeless optimism makes him look oblivious to the big picture and blind to how long he and Arnold are stuck and what bad things could happen to them if they don’t get down soon. That’s not even counting how cloying he can get by just sitting back and singing children’s songs for the whole ordeal. Eugene does get some endearment when he confides to Arnold how he feels about everyone calling him a jinx and thinking they’re right proving he’s not totally unaware of how bad the trouble he gets into is.
Here's my website: https://jumphighersite.org/