The first thing most researchers discover when they decide to conduct a scoping review is that their program's timeline did not account for how much work is required. Scoping reviews carry a reputation as the faster, lighter alternative to a systematic review, a reputation the methodology literature does not support. Pham and colleagues (2014) conducted a scoping review of scoping reviews and found that completion times ranged from 2 weeks to 20 months. The average scoping review is not shorter than a systematic review. It is broader, which creates its own workload.
The second thing researchers discover is that scoping reviews follow a specific methodological framework, not just a general idea of surveying the literature, and that deviating from this framework produces a document that journals will not accept as a rigorous scoping review. For researchers who need support writing a scoping review that meets JBI, PRISMA-ScR, and OSF registration standards, ScribeLab Writer's systematic review writing service works with PhD students, MSN and DNP researchers, and faculty teams through every stage.
Quick Answer:
A scoping review maps the extent, range, and nature of evidence on a topic. It follows either the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) five-stage framework with refinements by Levac et al. (2010), or the JBI (Peters et al., 2020) methodology, which adds the PCC framework (Population, Concept, Context) as the scoping review equivalent of PICO. Scoping reviews do not require critical appraisal, do not produce forest plots, and cannot make clinical recommendations. Register your protocol on OSF before searching. PROSPERO does not accept scoping review protocols. Report the completed review using the PRISMA-ScR checklist (Tricco et al., 2018), not PRISMA 2020. Charting (the scoping review equivalent of data extraction) maps the characteristics of included sources rather than extracting outcome data for pooling.
What a Scoping Review Is and When to Use One
Arksey and O'Malley published the foundational methodological framework for scoping studies in 2005, identifying five purposes that distinguish a scoping review from a systematic review (International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2005;8(1):19–32):
To examine the extent, range, and nature of evidence on a topic. When a research area is new or heterogeneous, a scoping review maps what evidence exists and in what forms, without making claims about what the evidence proves.
To determine whether a full systematic review is warranted. A scoping review can assess whether the evidence base is sufficient, focused, and comparable enough for meta-analysis before committing to the full systematic review workload.
To summarize and disseminate findings from a diverse body of research. When evidence comes from multiple disciplines, methodologies, and publication types, a scoping review synthesizes across them without the eligibility constraints of a systematic review.
To identify research gaps. When the explicit goal is to identify what is unknown rather than summarize what is known, a scoping review is the appropriate choice.
To provide an overview of policy or practice. When a decision-maker needs a broad evidence base rather than a focused answer to a specific intervention question, a scoping review serves the purpose.
The comparison between systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis methods covers when each review type is most appropriate.
A scoping review is not appropriate when you have a specific clinical question about the effectiveness of an intervention. For that question, a systematic review and potentially a meta-analysis are the right approach. Using a scoping review to avoid the methodological demands of a systematic review is a choice that experienced reviewers and peer reviewers recognize immediately.
Scoping Review vs Systematic Review: The Critical Differences
Table 1: Scoping Review vs Systematic Review Side by Side
Feature | Scoping Review | Systematic Review |
|---|---|---|
Purpose | Map the extent, range, and nature of evidence on a topic. Identify gaps. Describe what evidence exists and in what forms. | Answer a focused clinical question about the effectiveness, accuracy, or impact of a specific intervention, test, or exposure. |
Research question framework | PCC: Population, Concept, Context (JBI). PICO may be used when the concept is a specific intervention. | PICO: Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome. PICOS adds Study design. |
Protocol registration | OSF (osf.io). PROSPERO does not accept scoping reviews. | PROSPERO (crd.york.ac.uk/prospero). Some non-health reviews use OSF. |
Critical appraisal | Optional. Not required. Cannot be used as an exclusion criterion. If included, present descriptively only. | Required. Tool pre-specified by study design (RoB 2, ROBINS-I V2, QUADAS-2, etc.). Results feed into GRADE certainty ratings. |
Statistical synthesis | No meta-analysis. No forest plot. Descriptive synthesis only: charting tables, frequency tables, narrative themes, evidence gap maps. | Meta-analysis is conducted when studies are sufficiently comparable. Forest plots, I², tau², prediction intervals. GRADE Summary of Findings tables. |
Clinical recommendations | Not appropriate. Scoping reviews cannot make clinical practice recommendations because evidence has not been quality-appraised. | Appropriate when supported by GRADE certainty evidence. Recommendation strength is tied to the certainty level. |
Reporting checklist | PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al., Ann Intern Med 2018). 20 essential + 2 optional items. Not PRISMA 2020. | PRISMA 2020 (Page et al., BMJ 2021). 27 items. Not PRISMA-ScR. |
Grey literature | Essential. Scoping reviews intentionally include reports, policies, guidelines, theses, and other grey literature to map the full extent of evidence. | Recommended to reduce publication bias. Often restricted to peer-reviewed sources, but MECIR standards require a grey literature search. |
Typical completion time | 2 weeks to 20 months (Pham et al., 2014). Median approximately 14 months for a standard health research scoping review. | Mean 67.3 weeks (15 months) from PROSPERO registration to publication (Borah et al., 2017). Does not include pre-registration protocol development. |
The Myth That Scoping Reviews Are Easier or Faster
Pham and colleagues (2014) specifically investigated completion rates and timelines for scoping reviews and found completion times ranging from 2 weeks to 20 months (Research Synthesis Methods, 2014;5(4):371–385). Studies taking 2 weeks were almost certainly rapid scoping exercises on very narrow topics with small literature bases. The median for a typical health research scoping review is closer to 14 months.
Scoping reviews are frequently longer than systematic reviews in practice for three reasons:
The search is broader. Scoping reviews typically cast a wider net than systematic reviews. A broader PICO or PCC question retrieves more records. More records mean more screening work, not less.
No appraisal excludes studies. In a systematic review, critical appraisal may exclude studies that do not meet quality thresholds. In a scoping review, critical appraisal is optional and cannot serve as an exclusion criterion. More studies pass screening and require charting.
Charting a heterogeneous literature takes time. When included sources use different terminologies, report different outcomes, and come from different disciplines, extracting comparable data from each requires careful judgment for every source.
The appropriate decision rule is: choose a scoping review because the research question calls for mapping, not because it calls for less work.
The PCC Framework: Population, Concept, Context
The JBI methodology for scoping reviews uses the PCC framework as the scoping review equivalent of PICO (Peters et al., JBI Evidence Synthesis, 2020;18(10):2119–2126).
Population defines who or what the sources concern. This may be people (patients, students, clinicians), organizations (hospitals, schools, community groups), or species (in veterinary or ecological scoping reviews). Define the population with the same specificity as you would in a systematic review PICO.
Concept defines what is being scoped. This is deliberately broader than the intervention and comparator in PICO. The concept in a scoping review may be a nursing practice, a health technology, a policy approach, a measurement instrument, or a theoretical model. Because the concept is broad, the protocol must define carefully the eligibility criteria for what counts as addressing the concept.
Context defines the setting, culture, geographic region, or other contextual factor that bounds the review. A scoping review of nurse-led sepsis protocols in emergency departments in sub-Saharan Africa has a very specific context. A scoping review of patient engagement tools in outpatient settings has a broader context. Both are valid. The context must be defined a priori and applied consistently during screening.
How to write a PCC question: Formulate it as: "What evidence exists regarding [concept] among [population] in [context]?" For example: "What evidence exists regarding nurse-led fall prevention interventions (Concept) among adults aged 65 and over admitted to acute care settings (Population) in high-income countries (Context)?"
PICO remains appropriate in scoping reviews when the question has a clearly defined intervention and comparator. JBI accepts PICO as a valid framework for scoping reviews that focus on a specific intervention, even when the goal is mapping rather than effectiveness evaluation. Use PCC when the concept is too broad to capture accurately with PICO.
Stage 1: Identifying the Research Question
The research question is the single most important decision in a scoping review. A question that is too narrow eliminates the breadth that makes a scoping review valuable. A question that is too broad yields a body of evidence that is too heterogeneous to synthesize meaningfully.
Levac and colleagues (2010) refined the Arksey and O'Malley framework and emphasized linking the purpose of the scoping review to its research question as an explicit first step (Implementation Science, 2010;5:69). A question written to "map the evidence" on a broad topic without specifying a clear Population, Concept, and Context is not a researchable scoping review question.
The question must be finalized before the protocol is written. The protocol must be registered (on OSF) before the search begins. Changing the research question after the search has been run constitutes a protocol deviation that must be disclosed in the final manuscript.
Stage 2: Identifying Relevant Sources
The scoping review search strategy follows the same principles as a systematic review search: comprehensive, documented, reproducible, and conducted across multiple databases. The search strategy should include controlled vocabulary terms and free-text synonyms for each PCC component combined with Boolean operators.
The key difference from a systematic review search is scope. A scoping review intentionally includes a broader range of source types, including journal articles, grey literature, government reports, conference abstracts, and theses. Grey literature is particularly important in scoping reviews because the purpose is to map the full extent of evidence on a topic, including evidence that has not yet been subjected to formal peer review.
Databases for health and nursing scoping reviews: CINAHL Complete, PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for trials. Grey literature sources include government health agency websites, clinical guideline databases (NICE, NHMRC, NGC), and clinical practice network repositories.
For guidance on confirming the peer-reviewed status of sources and distinguishing publication types during screening, the systematic review protocol guide covers source identification standards that apply equally to scoping reviews.
Stage 3: Study Selection
Screening for a scoping review follows the same two-stage process as a systematic review: title and abstract screening followed by full-text assessment for all records that pass the first stage.
Eligibility criteria must be applied consistently by all reviewers throughout both stages. A pilot screening exercise in which two or more reviewers independently screen the same 50 records and compare decisions. confirms that the PCC criteria are being interpreted consistently before the full screening begins.
JBI recommends at least two independent reviewers for the study selection stage, consistent with the dual-reviewer standard for systematic reviews. A single reviewer making all inclusion and exclusion decisions introduces selection bias. Disagreements should be resolved through discussion, with a third reviewer adjudicating where consensus is not reached.
PRISMA-ScR requires a PRISMA flow diagram documenting the number of records identified, screened, assessed for eligibility, and included. The flow diagram for a scoping review uses the same four-stage structure (Identification, Screening, Eligibility, Included) as PRISMA 2020.
Stage 4: Charting the Data
Charting is the scoping review equivalent of data extraction. The difference is fundamental: systematic review data extraction extracts specific outcome data for quantitative pooling. Charting in a scoping review extracts descriptive information about the source's characteristics. what the source studied, who the participants were, what the concept addressed, in what context, using what methods, and what the main findings were.
Charting does not extract effect sizes, confidence intervals, or outcome data for statistical synthesis. There is no meta-analysis in a scoping review. Attempting to pool quantitative data from sources identified through a scoping review is a methodological error.
A standard charting form for a health research scoping review typically captures: author and year, country, study design, population characteristics, concept definition used, context, data collection methods, and key findings relevant to the PCC question.
The charting form should be piloted on a sample of five to ten included sources by at least two reviewers to ensure consistency before the full charting begins.
Working through a scoping review with a large and heterogeneous literature? |
|---|
Charting a diverse body of literature from multiple source types, disciplines, and publication formats is one of the most time-intensive stages of a scoping review. Developing a consistent charting form, piloting it across two independent reviewers, and synthesizing findings thematically requires both methodological expertise and significant researcher time. ScribeLab Writer's systematic review team supports researchers with charting form development, independent second-reviewer charting, and thematic synthesis for scoping reviews at the DNP, MSN, and doctoral levels. |
Stage 5: Collating, Summarizing, and Reporting Results
The synthesis in a scoping review is descriptive and thematic, not statistical. The goal is to map what the literature collectively shows about the PCC question, what populations have been studied, what concepts have been examined, in what contexts, using what approaches, and with what findings.
Frequency tables summarize the distribution of sources across study design, country, publication year, population type, or concept variant. A frequency table showing that 47 percent of identified sources are from the United States and only 3 percent from sub-Saharan Africa is a meaningful finding about the distribution of evidence.
Charting tables present the extracted information from each source in a structured format, comparable to the characteristics-of-included-studies table in a systematic review.
Narrative synthesis organizes the findings thematically across the included sources. Themes emerge from the charting data; they are not pre-determined. The SWiM reporting guideline (Campbell et al., BMJ, 2020;368:l6890) provides a structured framework for reporting narrative synthesis in any review type.
Evidence gap maps visualize where evidence is dense and where it is absent across the dimensions of the PCC question. Gap maps are particularly useful in scoping reviews because identifying gaps is one of their explicit purposes.
Stage 6: Consultation
Arksey and O'Malley included consultation as an optional sixth stage. Levac and colleagues (2010) refined this to recommend consultation as a best-practice component of scoping reviews that have policy or practice implications.
Consultation involves presenting preliminary findings to stakeholders, clinicians, patients, policymakers, community representatives, and incorporating their perspective on what the evidence means and where the gaps are most significant. Consultation is particularly important in participatory or community-engaged research contexts.
Not every scoping review requires consultation. It is most valuable when the purpose is to inform practice or policy decisions in a field where stakeholder perspectives add context that the literature alone cannot provide.
Registering Your Scoping Review Protocol on OSF
PROSPERO does not accept scoping review protocols. The Open Science Framework (OSF) at osf.io is the standard registration platform for scoping reviews.
OSF registration is free, instant, and provides a citable DOI immediately. Your protocol document is uploaded as a file attached to the registration record. Version control tracks all subsequent edits, so any amendments to the protocol after registration are documented automatically.
What to include in the OSF protocol: the research question in PCC format, the eligibility criteria, the databases to be searched, the screening and charting process, the planned synthesis approach, and a statement confirming you will report using PRISMA-ScR. This is the same content as a PROSPERO protocol, adapted for the scoping review context.
Register on OSF before running any database search. The a priori nature of the protocol is what distinguishes a scoping review from a retrospective literature summary.
PRISMA-ScR: The Reporting Checklist for Scoping Reviews
PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) is the reporting checklist developed for scoping reviews (Tricco et al., Annals of Internal Medicine, 2018;169(7):467–473). It consists of 20 essential items and 2 optional items, developed by a 24-member international panel following EQUATOR methodology.
PRISMA-ScR is not the same as PRISMA 2020. Five items from PRISMA 2020 were deemed not applicable to scoping reviews. PRISMA-ScR adds items specific to scoping reviews, including the reporting of the PCC framework and the charting process.
Table 2: PRISMA-ScR Key Items. What Scoping Reviews Must Report
PRISMA-ScR Section | What to Report | Different from PRISMA 2020? |
|---|---|---|
Title | Identify it as a scoping review in the title. | Same requirement. Must use "scoping review," not "systematic review." |
Protocol and registration | State whether a protocol exists, where it is registered (OSF), and provide the registration DOI or number. Report any deviations from the protocol. | Same requirement. OSF rather than PROSPERO. |
Eligibility criteria | Report inclusion and exclusion criteria, including the PCC (or PICO) components and any other eligibility parameters (date range, language, source type). | PCC framework replaces PICO. No requirement to specify study design quality thresholds. |
Charting methods | Describe the charting form, how it was developed, the variables extracted, and how many reviewers charted each source. Report any piloting of the charting form. | PRISMA-ScR-specific item. PRISMA 2020 covers "data collection process," but scoping review charting is distinct from data extraction for meta-analysis. |
Critical appraisal (if conducted) | Report the tool used and the results descriptively. State clearly that the appraisal did not serve as an exclusion criterion. | Optional in PRISMA-ScR. Required in PRISMA 2020. Appraisal must not function as an exclusion gate in scoping reviews. |
Synthesis of results | Summarize descriptive results using charting tables, frequency distributions, narrative themes, or evidence gap maps. No pooled effect estimates. | No forest plots, no meta-analysis, no GRADE certainty ratings. Descriptive synthesis only. |
Implications | Report implications for research, practice, or policy. State explicitly that clinical recommendations cannot be made from a scoping review. Recommend future systematic reviews where evidence gaps exist. | Key restriction: no clinical recommendations. PRISMA 2020 allows clinical recommendations from systematic reviews with GRADE-rated evidence. |
The PRISMA-ScR checklist is available on the EQUATOR network at equator-network.org. Download the checklist before you begin writing the manuscript, not after.
What Replaces the Forest Plot in a Scoping Review
A scoping review does not produce a forest plot. Forest plots visualize the results of a meta-analysis. a quantitative pooling of effect estimates from comparable studies. Because scoping reviews do not pool quantitative data, there is no effect estimate and no forest plot.
What scoping reviews produce instead:
Charting tables: The primary output is a table presenting the characteristics and key findings of all included sources. This table is analogous to the characteristics-of-included-studies table in a systematic review but covers a broader range of source characteristics.
Frequency tables: Descriptive quantitative summaries of how sources distribute across categories (study design, country, population type, publication year).
Evidence gap maps: Visual representations of where evidence is concentrated and where it is absent, plotted across two or more dimensions of the PCC question.
Thematic summaries: Narrative sections organized by theme, presenting what the literature collectively shows about each aspect of the PCC question.
What a Scoping Review Cannot Do
Understanding the limitations of a scoping review is as important as understanding its methods. These limitations are not weaknesses; they are the consequence of the review's design, which deliberately prioritizes breadth over depth.
A scoping review cannot make clinical recommendations. JBI methodology is explicit: scoping reviews should not make clinical practice recommendations because the evidence has not been appraised for quality. A recommendation requires not just the presence of evidence but assurance that the evidence is valid. Without critical appraisal, that assurance is absent.
A scoping review cannot determine whether an intervention works. A scoping review can tell you that randomized controlled trials of a given intervention exist. It cannot tell you whether those trials show the intervention is effective, because it does not pool effect estimates or assess the certainty of that evidence.
A scoping review cannot replace a systematic review for clinical guideline development, health technology assessment, or Cochrane evidence synthesis. These applications require a systematic review with critical appraisal and GRADE certainty ratings.
Scoping Reviews in Nursing, DNP, and International Research Contexts
DNP and MSN capstone projects: Scoping reviews are increasingly accepted as DNP scholarly project outputs when the clinical question concerns the range of existing interventions or models, the state of evidence in an emerging area, or the types of outcome measures used across a practice area. A scoping review is appropriate for a DNP project when the evidence base is too heterogeneous or emerging for a systematic review. not simply because the timeline is tight.
Nursing research: Scoping reviews are common in nursing when exploring new or evolving practice areas. The JBI methodology, developed in part at the University of Adelaide's JBI Evidence Synthesis unit, is the standard framework in nursing-focused scoping reviews. JBI's PCC framework aligns well with nursing practice questions that concern care processes and contexts rather than pharmaceutical interventions.
UAE and Saudi Arabia: Nursing and health sciences programs in the UAE and Saudi Arabia that follow US accreditation standards accept scoping reviews for graduate capstone projects and as standalone publications. The registration and reporting standards (OSF and PRISMA-ScR) are identical to those in the US, UK, and Australia.
UK: The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) funds scoping reviews under evidence synthesis grants. UK scoping reviews predominantly follow JBI or Arksey and O'Malley methodology and use PRISMA-ScR for reporting.
Common Scoping Review Mistakes
Making clinical recommendations from a scoping review. This is the most serious mistake and the most common reason scoping review manuscripts are rejected by journals. If your discussion section ends with "based on this scoping review, we recommend that clinicians adopt X," the manuscript will be returned for revision.
Using PRISMA 2020 instead of PRISMA-ScR. PRISMA 2020 is for systematic reviews. Submitting a scoping review with a PRISMA 2020 checklist signals to reviewers that the authors do not understand the distinction between review types.
Registering on PROSPERO. PROSPERO does not accept scoping reviews. If you register your scoping review protocol on PROSPERO, CRD will return it. Register on OSF.
Applying inclusion/exclusion criteria too narrowly. Scoping reviews are purposively broad. Eligibility criteria that approach the specificity of a systematic review undermine the mapping purpose.
Treating charting as data extraction. Charting maps the characteristics and findings of sources. It does not extract outcome data for pooling. Attempting to create forest plots from charted data is a methodological error.
Not including grey literature. Grey literature is especially important in scoping reviews. Excluding it without justification risks missing a substantial portion of the evidence on topics where practice leads publication.
Omitting consultation when it would add value. For scoping reviews with policy implications, omitting the Stage 6 consultation weakens the review's contribution to practice.
Frequently Asked Questions About Scoping Reviews
Is PROSPERO registration required for a scoping review?
No. PROSPERO does not accept scoping review protocols. Register on OSF (osf.io) before beginning your search. OSF provides an instant citable DOI and full version control of all protocol amendments.
Do I need to appraise the quality of included sources in a scoping review?
Not necessarily. JBI states that critical appraisal is optional in scoping reviews, not required. If you choose to include an appraisal, present the results descriptively. Do not use appraisal as an exclusion criterion, as that would convert your scoping review into a systematic review.
Can a scoping review include quantitative and qualitative studies?
Yes. This is one of the features that makes scoping reviews useful for emerging or heterogeneous fields. You can include RCTs, qualitative studies, mixed-methods studies, grey literature, and any other source type that addresses your PCC question. The charting form captures the design of each source so readers can see the distribution of evidence types.
What is the difference between a scoping review and a rapid review?
A rapid review deliberately compresses the systematic review process. It uses systematic methods but with defined restrictions on database scope, search dates, or reviewer numbers to reduce time. A scoping review uses a different methodology altogether: broader question, broader sources, no appraisal, and charting instead of extraction. The choice between a rapid review and a scoping review depends on the research question, not the timeline.
How do I cite my OSF protocol in the manuscript?
Cite the OSF registration record as you would any other reference: Author(s). Title of protocol. OSF. Year. DOI. For example: "This scoping review was conducted in accordance with a protocol registered prospectively on the Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/XXXXX)."
Can a scoping review be published as a standalone journal article?
Yes. Many journals publish scoping reviews as standalone articles. Journals that specifically accept scoping reviews include JBI Evidence Synthesis, Systematic Reviews (BioMed Central), BMJ Open, PLoS ONE, and many discipline-specific nursing and health journals. Confirm that the journal accepts scoping reviews before submitting. Some journals require systematic reviews with critical appraisal for their evidence synthesis category.
You May Also Find Useful
Completing a Scoping Review That Meets Current Standards
A scoping review completed to current JBI and PRISMA-ScR standards is a methodologically rigorous and clinically valuable output. It maps the evidence, identifies gaps, and provides a foundation for future systematic reviews or primary research. It is also demanding work that requires the same documentation standards, the same dual-reviewer process at key stages, and the same commitment to transparency that a systematic review requires.
Choose a scoping review because your question calls for mapping, not because you want a lighter workload. Register the protocol on OSF before the first search is run. Follow the Arksey and O'Malley framework with Levac refinements, or the JBI methodology. Report the completed review using PRISMA-ScR. Do not make clinical recommendations from a scoping review. And do not expect it to be faster than a systematic review just because the methodology says it does not require critical appraisal.
A scoping review submitted without a pre-registered OSF protocol, without a PRISMA-ScR compliant methods section, or with clinical recommendations in the discussion will be returned at desk review by any editor familiar with JBI methodology, regardless of the quality of the charting and synthesis work that preceded it. ScribeLab Writer's systematic review writing team, led by credentialed researchers with published evidence syntheses in the biomedical literature, works with PhD students, MSN and DNP researchers, and faculty teams on PCC question formulation, OSF registration, charting form development, and PRISMA-ScR compliant manuscript writing for reviews targeting JBI Evidence Synthesis, Systematic Reviews, and discipline-specific journals. Submit your scoping review topic and target journal through the enquiry form, and a member of the team will respond within 2-4 hours.
