What Is a Scoping Review? Purpose, Method, Examples

Key Takeaways:

• A scoping review is an evidence synthesis method designed to map the extent, nature, and range of available literature on a topic: not to answer a specific clinical or policy question.
• It is the appropriate choice when a topic is new, broad, conceptually unclear, or characterised by heterogeneous evidence; it should not be used as a shortcut to avoid systematic review rigour.
• Unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews do not require quality appraisal of included studies, allow flexible and broad inclusion criteria, and can include all study types and grey literature.
• The methodology is iterative: teams should be prepared to revisit earlier stages (such as the research question or inclusion criteria) as the review evolves.
• The foundational framework was established by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and refined by Levac et al. (2010) and the JBI; the PRISMA-ScR checklist (2018) is the accepted reporting standard.
• A multidisciplinary team is essential: at minimum, a content expert, a methodology expert, and a librarian.
• Calibration between reviewers at both screening and data charting stages is non-negotiable for methodological rigour, with a ≥90% agreement threshold commonly used.
• Protocol registration on OSF or PROSPERO before searching is strongly recommended and increasingly required by journals.
• Scoping reviews can serve as a standalone contribution or as a precursor to a systematic review: they are not lesser reviews, but different tools for different questions.
• Scoping reviews should not be used to make definitive clinical or practice recommendations; those require the quality appraisal and synthesis rigour of a systematic review.

Glossary of Key Terms

The following terms appear throughout this guide. Familiarity with these definitions will help you follow the methodology and make informed decisions about whether a scoping review is right for your project.

Term	Definition
Scoping Review	A systematic and iterative evidence synthesis method that maps the extent, range, and nature of available literature on a topic, identifies gaps, and clarifies concepts without necessarily conducting quality appraisal.
Systematic Review	A highly structured evidence synthesis designed to answer a focused clinical or policy question by exhaustively searching, critically appraising, and synthesising all relevant studies.
Evidence Synthesis	The process of collecting and combining data from multiple research sources to summarise the current state of knowledge on a topic.
PRISMA-ScR	Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews: a 22-item checklist (20 essential, 2 optional) that guides transparent reporting of scoping reviews.
JBI Methodology	The Joanna Briggs Institute framework providing step-by-step guidance for planning, conducting, and reporting scoping reviews, widely used in health sciences.
Arksey & O’Malley Framework	The seminal 2005 six-stage iterative framework that first formally defined the scoping review methodology.
PCC Framework	Population, Concept, Context: the JBI-recommended mnemonic for framing a scoping review research question, equivalent to PICO used in systematic reviews.
PICO Framework	Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome: the structured question framework used in systematic reviews to define focused clinical questions.
Charting the Data	The scoping review equivalent of data extraction: systematically recording key information from included studies into a standardised form.
Grey Literature	Evidence not commercially published in peer-reviewed journals, including government reports, policy documents, theses, and conference proceedings.
Calibration Exercise	A structured exercise where two or more reviewers independently screen or extract data from a subset of papers, then compare results to establish a shared understanding of inclusion criteria: aiming for ≥90% agreement.
Thematic Analysis	A qualitative method of identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns (themes) across a dataset, commonly used in the synthesis stage of a scoping review.
Protocol Registration	Pre-publishing a scoping review plan on a registry (e.g., Open Science Framework or PROSPERO) before conducting the review, to increase transparency and reduce bias.
Knowledge Gap	An area within a body of literature where evidence is absent, insufficient, or inconsistent, often identified through a scoping review to inform future research priorities.
Narrative Review	An informal, non-systematic summary of literature on a topic that does not follow explicit, reproducible methods; also called a summary review.
Iterative Process	The non-linear, cyclical nature of scoping reviews, in which researchers may revisit and revise earlier steps (such as the research question or inclusion criteria) as their understanding of the topic deepens.

What Is a Scoping Review?

A scoping review is a type of evidence synthesis that uses a systematic and iterative approach to identify, map, and summarise an existing or emerging body of literature on a given topic. Unlike a systematic review, which is designed to answer a focused, often clinical question, a scoping review is primarily exploratory. Think of it less as a final verdict on what the evidence shows, and more as a surveyor’s map of the research landscape: it reveals the contours, the landmarks, and, crucially, the blank spaces where knowledge is missing.

Core Characteristics

• Broad, exploratory research question (not a narrow clinical question)
• Systematic and transparent methodology, but more flexible than a systematic review
• Includes all study designs: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods
• Can include grey literature (government reports, theses, policy documents)
• Does not typically perform critical quality appraisal of included studies
• Iterative in nature; the team may revisit earlier steps as understanding deepens
• Output is descriptive: a map of concepts, evidence types, and knowledge gaps
• Can be conducted as a standalone review or as a precursor to a systematic review

A Brief History of Scoping Reviews

The methodology was first formally described by Arksey and O’Malley (2005), drawing on earlier informal uses of scoping approaches in social research. It was subsequently refined by Levac, Colquhoun, and O’Brien (2010), and later formalised into institutional guidance by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist, published in 2018, further standardised how scoping reviews are planned and reported.

What Is the Purpose of a Scoping Review?

Scoping reviews serve several distinct and complementary purposes. According to Arksey and O’Malley and subsequent methodologists, the main reasons for conducting a scoping review include:

• To identify the types of available evidence in a given field
• To clarify key concepts and definitions that are contested or inconsistently used across the literature
• To examine how research has been conducted on a topic, including methodological diversity
• To identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept
• To identify and analyse gaps in the existing knowledge base
• To provide a precursor to a systematic review, determining whether one is warranted and refining its scope
• To summarise and disseminate research findings for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers

Importantly, scoping reviews are not designed to answer clinical questions about the effectiveness or safety of interventions. They provide descriptive summaries and evidence maps, not synthesised conclusions that can directly guide clinical practice or policy. This distinction is critical: a scoping review can tell you what kinds of evidence exist on a topic and where the gaps are; a systematic review tells you what that evidence conclusively shows.

When Should You Conduct a Scoping Review?

Choosing the right review methodology for your research question is one of the most consequential early decisions in evidence synthesis. The following table outlines the situations in which a scoping review is the appropriate choice:

Situation	Why a Scoping Review Fits
The topic is new or emerging and lacks comprehensive review	A scoping review is ideal when evidence is sparse, varied, or still accumulating (e.g., COVID-19 in early 2020).
The research question is broad and exploratory	If the question asks ‘what is known about X?’ rather than ‘does X work?’, a scoping review is the appropriate choice.
Definitions or concepts are unclear or contested	Scoping reviews help clarify how key terms are used across the literature before embarking on more focused research.
You need to map heterogeneous evidence across study types	Unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews can include qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies without methodological restriction.
You want to determine if a systematic review is warranted	A scoping review can confirm whether sufficient and sufficiently homogeneous literature exists to support a formal systematic review.
You want to identify research gaps to inform future priorities	Identifying what has not been studied is a primary output of a scoping review.
You are a practitioner or policymaker seeking a landscape overview	Scoping reviews are useful for staying informed about an evolving field without needing definitive clinical guidance.

When Should You Not Conduct a Scoping Review?

Conversely, a scoping review is NOT the right choice when:

• You need a definitive, clinically actionable answer (use a systematic review instead)
• Your question is already well-defined, narrow, and addressable through focused synthesis
• You want to formally assess the strength or quality of evidence to guide practice guidelines
• You are trying to avoid the rigour of a systematic review. Scoping reviews require their own rigour

Comparing Scoping Reviews to Other Review Types

There are many types of literature reviews. Before committing to a scoping review, it is important to understand how it differs from the most commonly confused alternatives. The table below provides a comprehensive feature-by-feature comparison:

Feature	Scoping Review	Systematic Review	Narrative Review
Purpose	Map literature, identify gaps, clarify concepts	Answer a specific clinical/policy question	Summarise a topic descriptively
Research Question	Broad, exploratory, open-ended	Narrow, focused, pre-defined (PICO)	Variable; no fixed structure
Protocol Required	Yes, pre-specified	Yes, pre-specified & often registered on PROSPERO	No
Quality Appraisal	Optional	Mandatory; risk-of-bias assessed	Not required
Inclusion Criteria	Broad; heterogeneous studies welcome	Strict; specific study designs	Informal
Grey Literature	Included	Sometimes included	Rarely formal
Team Size	Small (2+ reviewers recommended)	Large, multi-disciplinary team	Usually 1 person
Time Commitment	Months (avg. 6–12 months)	Long (12–18+ months)	Short to moderate
Level of Evidence	Moderate	Highest	Low
Informs Practice/Policy?	Indirectly (describes landscape)	Directly (evidence-based guidance)	Broadly informative only
Reporting Standard	PRISMA-ScR	PRISMA + GRADE	None mandatory
Output	Evidence map, conceptual overview, gap analysis	Synthesised conclusions, meta-analysis possible	Narrative summary

Scoping Review vs Systematic Review: Key Difference

The most important conceptual distinction is this:

A systematic review is built for evaluation, while a scoping review is built for exploration.

 A systematic review tests a defined hypothesis, assesses study quality, and aims to produce a reliable, evidence-based conclusion that can directly inform decisions. A scoping review asks ‘what is out there?’ It maps the field, cataloguing the types of evidence and identifying where knowledge is dense and where it is absent.

This distinction shapes everything downstream: the type of question you ask, the flexibility of your inclusion criteria, whether quality appraisal is required, how long the review will take, and what you can legitimately claim in your conclusions. A scoping review finding that ‘most studies used non-randomised designs and focused on high-income countries’ is a valid and useful contribution; it just cannot tell you whether an intervention works.

Scoping vs Narrative: Why the Difference Matters

Scoping reviews are sometimes confused with narrative (or traditional literature) reviews. The critical difference is transparency and reproducibility. A narrative review relies heavily on the author’s existing knowledge and does not follow a pre-specified, reproducible protocol. Scoping reviews, by contrast, are informed by an a priori protocol, conduct systematic and documented searches, include multiple reviewers, and present data in a structured, repeatable way. A well-conducted scoping review can be reproduced by another team following the same protocol; a narrative review generally cannot.

How to Conduct a Scoping Review: A Step-by-Step Guide

The following table summarises the steps involved in conducting a scoping review, as described in the Arksey and O’Malley framework (2005), refined by Levac et al. (2010) and the JBI methodology. The process is iterative: teams may move backwards to earlier steps as their understanding of the topic evolves.

#	Step	What It Involves
1	Assemble the Team	Form a multidisciplinary team including a content expert, a methodologist experienced in scoping reviews, and ideally a librarian to assist with search strategy development.
2	Identify the Research Question	Develop a broad but focused question using the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) framework. A preliminary search may help calibrate the breadth. Avoid questions that are too broad (overwhelming volume) or too narrow (insufficient literature).
3	Develop & Register a Protocol	Pre-specify aims, eligibility criteria, search strategy, databases, data charting approach, and analysis plan. Register the protocol on the Open Science Framework or PROSPERO prior to searching.
4	Identify Relevant Studies	Conduct a comprehensive search across multiple databases (e.g., MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science) and grey literature. Work with a librarian to build and refine the search strategy using Boolean operators and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH).
5	Screen & Select Studies	Screen titles and abstracts, then full texts, against pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria. Conduct a calibration exercise (5–10% of papers screened independently by two reviewers, aiming for ≥90% agreement). Tools such as Covidence or Rayyan can streamline this process.
6	Chart the Data	Extract key data from included studies using a pilot-tested charting form. Common fields include: author, year, country, study design, population, aims, methods, and key findings. The form should be developed collaboratively and refined iteratively.
7	Collate, Summarise & Report	Conduct numerical (descriptive statistics, frequency tables) and thematic analysis. Present findings using tables, charts, and narrative synthesis. Report according to PRISMA-ScR standards, including a PRISMA flow diagram.
8	Consult Stakeholders (Optional)	Engage relevant stakeholders via interviews, focus groups, or surveys to provide additional insights, validate findings, or identify gaps not captured in the literature.

Developing the Research Question

A well-formed research question is the foundation of a successful scoping review. The JBI recommends using the PCC framework:

• Population: who is the focus? (e.g., adults with Type 2 diabetes; undergraduate nursing students)
• Concept: what is the key phenomenon, intervention, or issue being mapped?
• Context: in what setting, culture, or geographic context? (e.g., primary care in low-income countries)

Example:

A well-formed scoping review question might be: ‘What blended learning approaches are currently used in undergraduate nursing education?’ (Rodger et al., 2024, Evidence-Based Nursing). This is broad enough to encompass diverse approaches but specific enough to be answerable and bounded.

Contrast this with an appropriate systematic review question: ‘Does simulation-based training improve clinical competency outcomes compared to traditional training in final-year medical students?’ The latter is narrow, outcome-specific, and structured for a definitive answer: unsuitable for a scoping review approach.

Building the Search Strategy

A comprehensive, multi-database search is central to the validity of a scoping review. Key principles include:

• Search at least two to three databases relevant to your field. In healthcare, common choices include PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science.
• Use Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) to combine search terms systematically.
• Use Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and field tags (e.g., title, abstract) to increase precision.
• Search grey literature sources including Google Scholar, government websites, policy repositories, and institutional repositories.
• Consider manual searching of reference lists of included studies (snowballing).
• Involve a librarian: their expertise in database structure and search strategy design is invaluable, and many journals now expect librarian involvement in the search process.

See also: How and Where to Find Research Papers for Literature Reviews: Literature Search Strategies and Examples

Screening and Calibration

Screening involves two phases: an initial screen of titles and abstracts, followed by a full-text review of potentially eligible studies. A critical aspect of rigorous screening is calibration:

1. Select 5–10% of the total papers for independent screening by two reviewers.
2. Compare decisions and calculate the level of agreement. A threshold of ≥90% agreement is commonly used.
3. Discuss any disagreements to align on the interpretation of inclusion criteria.
4. If agreement is below threshold, revise the criteria and repeat with another 10% sample.
5. After achieving satisfactory agreement, proceed with full screening: either with dual review or with one primary reviewer and a second verifying a proportion of decisions.

Tools such as Covidence and Rayyan are widely used to manage this process, support blind dual review, track exclusion reasons, and generate PRISMA flow diagrams.

Charting the Data

Data charting is the scoping review equivalent of data extraction. Key fields typically captured include:

• Author(s) and year of publication
• Country or geographic setting
• Study aims and design
• Population and sample size (if applicable)
• Intervention type, comparator, and outcome measures (if applicable)
• Key findings relevant to the scoping review question
• Study limitations and future directions noted by authors

The charting form must be developed collaboratively and pilot-tested on a small sample (5–10 papers) before full use. Calibration between reviewers is also required at this stage.

Synthesis and Reporting

Once data are charted, the team conducts both numerical and thematic analysis:

• Numerical analysis: frequency counts, distribution of publication years, country of origin, study designs, journals. Results are presented in tables or figures.
• Thematic analysis: codes are applied to key excerpts of text, then grouped into categories and themes. This process is iterative and reflexive, guided by memos and team discussion.

All scoping reviews should be reported using the PRISMA-ScR checklist, which includes a mandatory PRISMA flow diagram documenting the number of records identified, screened, and included at each stage.

PRISMA-ScR Checklist

PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) is a reporting guideline to ensure scoping reviews are transparent, complete, and reproducible.

What is it?

• An extension of the original PRISMA checklist, tailored specifically for scoping reviews
• Published in 2018 in Annals of Internal Medicine
• Contains 20 essential items + 2 optional items across 6 sections

The 6 Sections & Key Items

Section	Key Items
Title	Identify the report as a scoping review
Abstract	Structured summary including objectives, eligibility criteria, sources, methods, results
Introduction	Rationale for the review; explicit research question
Methods	Protocol registration, eligibility criteria, information sources, search strategy, selection process, data extraction, data items, critical appraisal (optional)
Results	Study selection (with PRISMA flow diagram), characteristics of sources, critical appraisal results (optional), results of individual sources, synthesis of results
Discussion & Conclusion	Summary, limitations, conclusions, implications for future research

How it Differs from Standard PRISMA

Feature	PRISMA (Systematic Review)	PRISMA-ScR (Scoping Review)
Purpose	Answer a focused question	Map evidence landscape
Critical appraisal	Required	Optional
Meta-analysis	Often included	Not applicable
Eligibility criteria	Narrow & specific	Broad & inclusive
Research question	Specific (PICO)	Broader (PCC framework)

Why It Matters

• Promotes reproducibility: others can replicate your search and selection
• Ensures completeness: no key methodological detail is omitted
• Facilitates peer review: reviewers can check against the checklist
• Helps distinguish scoping reviews from systematic reviews in the literature

The PCC Framework (used in eligibility criteria)

• P: Population
• C: Concept
• C: Context

Quick Tips for Use

• Complete the checklist alongside writing, not after
• Report the page/section number where each item appears
• Include the PRISMA flow diagram showing records identified → screened → included
• Optional items (critical appraisal) should be included if done, even if not mandatory

See also: Literature Mapping in Research: Definition, Types, and Benefits

Tools and Software for Scoping Reviews

The following tools are widely used at different stages of the scoping review process:

Tool	Primary Use	Key Features
Covidence	Screening & data extraction	Web-based platform that manages title/abstract and full-text screening; supports dual review and conflict resolution; generates PRISMA flow diagrams.
Rayyan	Screening	Free, cloud-based tool for blinded collaborative screening of titles and abstracts; detects duplicates; provides labelling and filtering.
NVivo / ATLAS.ti	Thematic analysis	Qualitative data analysis software used to code, categorise, and develop themes from the extracted data in the synthesis stage.
EndNote / Zotero / Mendeley	Reference management	Used to store, organise, and de-duplicate citations retrieved from database searches before import into screening tools.
PRISMA-ScR Checklist	Reporting	22-item checklist specifically for scoping reviews, ensuring transparent and complete reporting for publication.
JBI SUMARI	Full review management	The Joanna Briggs Institute’s integrated software platform supporting all stages of JBI-guided scoping reviews.
Open Science Framework	Protocol registration	Free registry where scoping review protocols can be pre-registered to increase transparency and reduce bias.

The Role of the Librarian in Scoping Reviews

Librarian involvement in scoping reviews is strongly recommended: and increasingly expected by journals. Librarians contribute at two levels:

Librarian Task	Tier 1: Consultative	Tier 2: Co-Author
Guidance on process & steps	Yes	Yes
Background searching for past reviews	Yes	Yes
Assistance refining eligibility criteria	Yes	Yes
Identifying databases to search	Yes	Yes
Training in citation management software	Yes	Yes
Developing & executing search strategies	No	Yes
Downloading results & removing duplicates	No	Yes
Documenting search strategies	No	Yes
Drafting the Methods search description	No	Yes
Creating PRISMA flow diagram	No	Yes
Co-authorship on published review	No	Yes (typically warranted)

Annotated Examples of Scoping Reviews

The following examples illustrate the range of purposes and contexts in which scoping reviews have been conducted, drawn from the methodological literature.

Example 1: Clarifying a Definition: Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia

Hines et al. conducted a scoping review to examine how the neonatal condition bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) was defined across the published literature.

• Purpose: To clarify how a specific clinical concept was defined and understood across multiple studies.
• Approach: Systematic search of relevant databases; included studies were screened and data extracted on how BPD was defined in each.
• Finding: Significant variation in how BPD was defined across the literature: different thresholds, criteria, and timeframes were used by different research groups.
• Outcome: The authors called for a comprehensive, evidence-based consensus definition to standardise future research.
• Why a scoping review? This was not a question about whether a treatment worked: it was about conceptual clarity. A systematic review would have been inappropriate.

Example 2: Mapping Available Evidence: Emergency Planning

Challen et al. conducted a scoping review to determine the types of available evidence in the field of emergency planning.

• Purpose: To identify and map the sources, volume, and characteristics of evidence informing emergency planning and response.
• Approach: Comprehensive search across databases and grey literature websites; 1,603 relevant sources were identified.
• Finding: While a large body of evidence existed, questions about its generalisability and validity remained unanswered: and the specific formats of evidence most useful to practitioners were not well understood.
• Outcome: Findings informed future research priorities in the field and helped justify a more targeted systematic review.
• Why a scoping review? The field was broad and heterogeneous; what was needed first was a map of the evidence landscape, not a synthesis of effectiveness.

Example 3: Identifying Research Gaps: Occupational Balance

Wagman, Håkansson, and Jonsson conducted a scoping review on the concept of ‘occupational balance’: the balance of work, rest, sleep, and play: to survey what had been studied and where gaps existed.

• Purpose: To map current research on occupational balance and identify areas where evidence was lacking.
• Approach: Systematic search across relevant databases; included studies described and mapped according to population, methods, and focus.
• Finding: Several research gaps were identified, including a near-absence of studies from non-Western societies, limited knowledge of individuals’ actual occupational balance levels, and a dearth of evidence on how balance could be improved.
• Outcome: Gap analysis directly informed a research agenda for future primary studies and potential systematic reviews.
• Why a scoping review? The goal was to identify what had not been studied, not to synthesise what had: a classic scoping review indication.

Example 4: Precursor to a Systematic Review: Microfinance

A scoping review commissioned by the UK Department for International Development was conducted to determine the scope and nature of literature on people’s experiences of microfinance interventions in South Asia.

• Purpose: To scope the available evidence before committing to a more resource-intensive systematic review.
• Approach: Broad systematic search; results mapped to identify volume, study types, populations, and focus areas.
• Finding: The scoping review identified sufficient literature and clarified the most relevant questions for the subsequent systematic review.
• Outcome: Findings directly informed the design of a targeted systematic review, including refining the research question and inclusion criteria.
• Why a scoping review? Before investing substantial resources in a full systematic review, the team needed to verify that sufficient and relevant evidence existed: a task perfectly suited to a scoping approach.

Example 5: Examining Research Conduct: Hip Replacement Wear

Callary et al. conducted a scoping review to investigate the methodological design of studies assessing wear of highly crosslinked polyethylene acetabular components in hip replacements.

• Purpose: To examine how data were reported in primary studies and whether methods were comparable enough to allow cross-study comparison.
• Finding: Measurement methods varied significantly across studies, making direct comparison impossible.
• Outcome: The authors recommended enhanced standardisation of measurement methods for future research.
• Why a scoping review? The question was not ‘which implant is better?’ but ‘how has this topic been studied?’: a methodological mapping question suited to a scoping design.

Common Pitfalls in a Scoping Review: Dos and Don’ts

Scoping reviews are sometimes misused: either conducted inappropriately (when a systematic review was warranted) or conducted poorly (skipping calibration, using a single reviewer, failing to register a protocol). The following table summarises the key dos and don’ts:

Do	Don’t
Do conduct a scoping review when the field is new, broad, or conceptually unclear	Don’t conduct one solely to avoid the rigour of a systematic review
Do include grey literature and diverse study designs	Don’t restrict to a single study design as you would in a systematic review
Do assemble a team of at least 2 reviewers for screening and extraction	Don’t rely on a single reviewer for the full screening process
Do register your protocol in a public registry before starting	Don’t begin searching before finalising your research question and protocol
Do use PRISMA-ScR to guide reporting	Don’t report a scoping review using general narrative review conventions
Do conduct a calibration exercise before full screening	Don’t skip calibration: poor inter-rater agreement compromises validity
Do include stakeholder consultation when possible	Don’t make definitive clinical or practice recommendations based solely on a scoping review

Reporting Standards and Protocol Registration

PRISMA-ScR

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) is the accepted standard for reporting scoping reviews. Published in 2018, it includes 22 items: 20 essential and 2 optional: covering all stages from the abstract and introduction through to methods, results, and discussion. Adhering to PRISMA-ScR:

• Ensures transparency and reproducibility
• Increases the likelihood of journal acceptance
• Facilitates reader appraisal of the review’s rigour
• Requires a PRISMA flow diagram documenting search and screening results

JBI Methodology

The Joanna Briggs Institute provides a comprehensive manual for scoping reviews, including a template for developing protocols, step-by-step procedural guidance, and a data charting template. JBI methodology is particularly prevalent in nursing and allied health research but is applicable across disciplines.

Core Steps (JBI 6-Stage Process)

Stage	Action
1. Define the question	Use PCC to frame a clear, answerable scoping question
2. Develop a protocol	Pre-register on OSF or JBI SUMARI before starting
3. Search the literature	Conduct a three-step search (see below)
4. Select studies	Screen titles/abstracts, then full text — minimum 2 independent reviewers
5. Extract data	Use a standardised data extraction tool; piloted before use
6. Synthesise & report	Narrative synthesis; report using PRISMA-ScR checklist

The JBI Three-Step Search Strategy

• Step 1, Initial search: Search 2 databases (e.g., MEDLINE, CINAHL) using key terms; analyse keywords from titles, abstracts, and index terms
• Step 2, Full search: Apply all identified keywords and MeSH terms across all relevant databases
• Step 3, Reference lists: Screen reference lists of all included sources for additional studies

Study Selection

• Eligibility criteria defined a priori in the protocol
• At least 2 reviewers independently screen at each stage
• Disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer
• Reasons for exclusion recorded at full-text stage
• Results displayed in a PRISMA flow diagram

Data Extraction

• Standardised JBI data extraction tool (customised per review)
• Typical fields extracted:

Field	Examples
Source details	Author, year, country, study design
Population	Sample size, demographics
Concept	Intervention/phenomenon details
Context	Setting, time period
Key findings	Outcomes, themes

Critical Appraisal

• Optional in scoping reviews (unlike systematic reviews)
• JBI recommends considering it when the review aims to inform practice
• Does not exclude studies based on quality

Synthesis & Reporting

• Primarily narrative: tabular and descriptive summaries
• Can include simple numerical counts (e.g., studies by country, design)
• Must follow PRISMA-ScR for reporting
• Gaps in evidence explicitly identified

Protocol Registration of Scoping Reviews

It is considered best practice: and sometimes a journal requirement: to register the scoping review protocol before beginning the search. The Open Science Framework (OSF) and PROSPERO are the two most commonly used registries. Registration:

• Locks in the research question, eligibility criteria, and planned analysis before data collection
• Reduces the risk of outcome reporting bias
• Demonstrates methodological rigour to peer reviewers and editors
• Allows other researchers to identify that a review is underway, preventing duplication

•  

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I conduct a scoping review on my own, or do I always need a team?

Technically, a scoping review can be completed by a single person, and some earlier scoping reviews in the literature were conducted this way. However, current best-practice guidance from the JBI, PRISMA-ScR, and the broader methodological literature strongly recommends a minimum of two reviewers, particularly for the screening and data charting stages. The reason is straightforward: single-reviewer screening introduces bias and reduces reliability.

The calibration exercise, which requires independent screening by two reviewers on a subset of papers and comparison of decisions, is also not possible with a solo researcher. Many journals now explicitly require dual review as a condition of publication.

If resources genuinely do not permit a full team, one approach is to have a primary reviewer conduct all screening, with a second reviewer verifying a meaningful proportion (often at least 20%) of decisions. Always be transparent about team composition in your methods section.

Is a scoping review ‘lower quality’ or ‘less rigorous’ than a systematic review?

This is one of the most persistent misconceptions about scoping reviews, and the answer is a clear no: with an important caveat. A scoping review is not a lesser or inferior version of a systematic review; it is a different tool designed for a different purpose.

Conducting a rigorous scoping review demands its own form of methodological discipline: a pre-specified protocol, systematic multi-database searching, calibrated dual screening, structured data charting, and transparent reporting via PRISMA-ScR. A well-conducted scoping review is a valid and publishable scholarly contribution.

The caveat is this: scoping reviews do sit at a lower level of evidence than systematic reviews when it comes to making clinical or policy recommendations, because they do not include critical quality appraisal or formal synthesis of evidence strength. They are powerful for mapping and exploration; they are not appropriate as a basis for changing clinical practice.

Do I need to do quality appraisal in a scoping review?

Formal critical appraisal, i.e., assessing the methodological quality and risk of bias of each included study, is generally not required in a scoping review. This is one of the defining methodological differences between scoping and systematic reviews.

The rationale is that a scoping review aims to provide an inclusive map of the available literature, regardless of the quality of individual studies; a methodologically weak study may still be relevant for illustrating how a concept has been discussed or what populations have been studied.

That said, some researchers choose to include quality appraisal as an optional additional step, particularly if a scoping review is being designed to closely inform practice or policy, or if a specific journal requires it.

If you do include quality appraisal, you should document this clearly in your protocol and methods. Importantly, you should not exclude studies based on quality appraisal findings in a scoping review: that is a systematic review function.

How long does a scoping review take, and how many articles will I need to screen?

The honest answer is: longer than most people expect, and more articles than most people anticipate. From initial question development through to a submitted manuscript, a scoping review commonly takes between 6 and 18 months.

The literature search itself can typically be completed in 4–6 weeks with librarian support, but the screening, data charting, analysis, and writing phases are substantial. The number of articles to screen depends heavily on how broad your research question is and the novelty of the topic.

Narrowly focused scoping reviews may yield a few hundred results after de-duplication; broader questions can return several thousand. It is common to begin with several thousand records at the title-and-abstract screening stage, then narrow to hundreds at full-text screening, and include a final set ranging from tens to a few hundred studies.

Factor in time for calibration exercises at both stages. Early planning of the team’s capacity is essential: underestimating the screening burden is one of the most common causes of scoping review delays.

What is the difference between a mapping review and a scoping review?

While both aim to map existing evidence and identify gaps, they differ in purpose and depth.

A mapping review (also called an evidence or systematic map) focuses on categorizing and characterizing the literature. It identifies the volume, types, and distribution of research on a broad topic, often presenting results visually or in tables. The emphasis is on charting where research clusters and where gaps exist, rather than examining findings in detail. It frequently informs future systematic reviews.

A scoping review typically addresses a somewhat more focused question. Beyond mapping breadth, it clarifies key concepts, examines how research is conducted, and often provides a narrative synthesis of the nature of the evidence. It follows established guidance (Arksey & O’Malley; JBI) and PRISMA-ScR reporting standards.

In short: mapping reviews emphasize categorization and distribution, while scoping reviews go somewhat deeper into interpreting the evidence. Terminology often overlaps in practice.

Can I change my research question or inclusion criteria after starting the review?

This question gets to the heart of the ‘iterative’ nature of scoping reviews: and it is one of the features that most clearly distinguishes them from systematic reviews. In a systematic review, the protocol is fixed in advance and deviating from it is a significant methodological breach that must be documented and justified. In a scoping review, the iterative process is built into the methodology. As your understanding of the field deepens through the search and screening process, it is acceptable, and sometimes necessary, to revisit and refine the research question, eligibility criteria, or data charting categories.

However, ‘iterative’ does not mean ‘arbitrary.’ Any changes must be documented transparently in the methods section, with clear explanation of why they were made. Major post-hoc changes to scope that appear to be driven by the results found (rather than genuine methodological insight) undermine the review’s integrity and can raise questions about bias. If your question is changing dramatically, it is also worth considering whether you initially formulated it at the right level of specificity. Best practice is to note any protocol amendments and, if registered, update the protocol registration accordingly.

 

What is the difference between a scoping review and a realist review?

A scoping review maps the breadth and nature of existing evidence on a topic: what has been studied, where, and how. It does not synthesize findings to answer a causal question. A realist review, by contrast, is theory-driven and explanatory: it asks why an intervention works, for whom, and in what circumstances, producing refined Context, Mechanism, Outcome (CMO) configurations. Scoping reviews suit unfamiliar fields where the literature needs charting; realist reviews suit complex interventions where mechanism and context need explaining. Scoping reviews describe the evidence landscape; realist reviews build causal theory from it.

Can a scoping review be submitted as a brief report?

Usually not. Scoping reviews are expected to follow PRISMA-ScR, which requires a full search strategy, screening flow diagram, and charted data tables. All this content rarely compresses into a brief report’s word and display-item limits.

Exceptions may be considered when:

• The review question is narrow and the evidence base small (e.g. fewer than ~15 sources)
• Full methods and charting tables can be supplied as supplementary files

Check the target journal’s limits before writing, as some accept “abbreviated” or “short” scoping reviews under a separate category.