The PRISMA-ScR checklist is the internationally recognized reporting guideline for scoping reviews. Published by Tricco et al. in 2018 and endorsed by the EQUATOR Network, this 22-item checklist ensures that scoping review manuscripts report every methodological detail needed for transparency, reproducibility, and editorial acceptance.
Incomplete PRISMA-ScR compliance is the most common desk rejection reason for scoping reviews submitted to peer-reviewed journals. If you are writing a scoping review or preparing one for publication, understanding every checklist item is not optional, it is the difference between a manuscript that reaches peer review and one that does not. This guide walks through all 22 items, explains the differences between PRISMA-ScR and PRISMA 2020, and provides actionable strategies for achieving full compliance before submission.
What Is the PRISMA-ScR Checklist?
PRISMA-ScR stands for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. It was developed by Tricco et al. (2018) as a formal extension of the original PRISMA statement, tailored specifically for the unique characteristics of scoping review methodology. The guideline was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine and is registered with the EQUATOR Network, making it the definitive standard for scoping review reporting worldwide.
A scoping review differs from a systematic review in fundamental ways. Scoping reviews map the available evidence on a broad topic rather than answering a narrow clinical question. They use the PCC framework (Population, Concept, Context) instead of the PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) that structures systematic reviews. Quality assessment of included studies is optional rather than mandatory. And scoping reviews do not perform meta-analysis, they chart and summarize data narratively.
These differences mean that the standard PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines (Page et al., 2021) do not fit scoping reviews. Items related to risk of bias assessment, certainty of evidence, and meta-analytic synthesis are irrelevant, while items specific to data charting, inclusion rationale, and evidence mapping are absent from PRISMA 2020 entirely. PRISMA-ScR fills that gap with 22 items designed specifically for how scoping reviews are conducted and reported.
The EQUATOR Network hosts the official checklist and recommends that all scoping review authors complete it before manuscript submission. Many journals now require PRISMA-ScR compliance as a condition of submission, and reviewers routinely check manuscripts against the checklist during peer review. For a broader understanding of how to write a scoping review, our companion guide covers the full methodology from protocol to publication.
The 22 PRISMA-ScR Checklist Items Explained
The PRISMA-ScR checklist items are organized into six sections that mirror the structure of a scoping review manuscript. Each item specifies what must be reported and where it belongs in the paper.
Title and Abstract (Items 1-2)
Item 1, Title. The title must identify the study as a scoping review. This is not a stylistic preference, it is a reporting requirement. Journals and databases use the title to classify the study type, and indexing services rely on it for accurate cataloging. A title like "Mapping the Evidence on Digital Health Interventions for Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review" meets the requirement. A title that omits "scoping review" does not.
Item 2, Structured abstract. The abstract must include the study background, objectives, eligibility criteria, sources of evidence, charting methods, results, and conclusions. Most journals require structured abstracts with labeled sections, but even when unstructured abstracts are accepted, every element listed in Item 2 must be present. The abstract is the single most-read component of any published paper, and an incomplete abstract signals methodological weakness before the reader reaches the Introduction.
Introduction (Items 3-4)
Item 3, Rationale. Describe the existing evidence landscape and explain why a scoping review is the appropriate synthesis method. This means articulating what is already known, what gaps exist, and why a scoping review, rather than a systematic review or narrative review, is the correct approach. Reference prior reviews on the topic if they exist, and explain how your scoping review extends or differs from them.
Item 4, Objectives. State the specific objectives and research questions. Scoping review objectives are typically broader than systematic review objectives. They often use language like "to map," "to identify the range," or "to examine the extent" of the evidence. Your objectives should align with your PCC framework and clearly indicate what the review intends to accomplish.
Methods (Items 5-12)
The Methods section contains the largest concentration of checklist items and is where most compliance failures occur. Items 5 through 12 cover everything from the protocol to the search strategy to the data charting process.
Item 5, Protocol and registration. Report whether a protocol exists, where it is registered (e.g., OSF, PROSPERO if accepted), and whether it was published. If deviations from the protocol occurred, they must be disclosed. Protocol transparency is a cornerstone of methodological rigor and a frequent point of reviewer scrutiny.
Item 6, Eligibility criteria. Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria using the PCC framework: Population (who), Concept (what), and Context (where/when). Be explicit about study designs included, languages, date ranges, and publication types. Ambiguous eligibility criteria are one of the most common reasons reviewers request major revisions.
Item 7, Information sources. List every database searched (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science), plus any grey literature sources, hand-searching of reference lists, or expert consultations. Include the date of the last search for each source. Reproducibility depends on other researchers being able to replicate your search exactly.
Item 8, Search. Present the full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including all search terms, Boolean operators, and filters. Many authors place the complete search strategies for all databases in supplementary materials. The search strategy must be detailed enough for another researcher to execute it independently.
Item 9, Selection of sources of evidence. Describe the screening process: how many reviewers screened titles and abstracts, how many screened full texts, and how disagreements were resolved. Report inter-rater reliability if measured. This item is critical for demonstrating the rigor of your study selection.
Item 10, Data charting process. Describe how data were extracted from included sources. Scoping reviews use "data charting" rather than "data extraction", a deliberate terminological distinction that reflects the broader, more exploratory nature of scoping reviews. Report whether a charting form was used, whether it was piloted, and whether one or two reviewers independently charted data.
Item 11, Data items. List all variables for which data were charted. This typically includes study characteristics (author, year, country, design), population details, concept definitions, context, and key findings. Presenting these as a table in the Methods section improves clarity.
Item 12, Critical appraisal of individual sources of evidence. If quality assessment was conducted, describe the tool used, the process, and how results were incorporated. If quality assessment was not conducted, which is acceptable in scoping reviews, state this explicitly and explain why. This transparency is what distinguishes a rigorous scoping review from one that simply omitted quality assessment without justification.
Results (Items 13-17)
Item 13, Selection of sources of evidence. Present the results of the search and screening process, ideally using a flow diagram. Report the number of records identified, duplicates removed, titles and abstracts screened, full texts assessed, and sources included in the final review.
Item 14, Characteristics of sources of evidence. Present the characteristics of all included sources. This is typically done in a summary table showing author, year, country, study design, population, concept, context, and key findings for each included source.
Item 15, Critical appraisal within sources of evidence. If quality assessment was conducted, present the results. If not, this item is reported as not applicable. The key is transparency, the reader must know whether quality was assessed and what the findings were.
Item 16, Results of individual sources of evidence. Present the relevant data charted from each included source. This may include direct quotes, numerical data, thematic summaries, or categorical classifications depending on the nature of the evidence.
Item 17, Synthesis of results. Present the synthesized findings, organized thematically, by population, by concept, or by another logical structure. Scoping reviews synthesize descriptively rather than statistically. Tables, figures, and narrative summaries are the primary synthesis tools. This is where your scoping review maps available evidence and presents the landscape of what is known.
Discussion (Items 18-20)
Item 18, Summary of evidence. Summarize the main findings in relation to your review objectives and research questions. Link your findings back to the rationale stated in the Introduction.
Item 19, Limitations. Discuss the limitations of both the evidence (e.g., gaps in the literature, low quality of included studies) and the review process (e.g., single reviewer for screening, language restrictions). Transparent limitation reporting strengthens rather than weakens your manuscript.
Item 20, Conclusions. Provide conclusions that are supported by the evidence presented. Scoping reviews typically conclude with implications for future research, clinical practice, or policy, and often identify specific gaps that warrant full systematic reviews.
Other Information (Items 21-22)
Item 21, Funding. Report all sources of funding for the scoping review, including funding for the review itself and any funding for individual authors that could represent a conflict of interest.
Item 22, Conflicts of interest. Disclose any competing interests among the review team. This is a standard requirement across all research reporting guidelines but is explicitly included in the PRISMA-ScR checklist to ensure authors do not overlook it.
PRISMA-ScR vs PRISMA 2020, Key Differences
Understanding the differences between PRISMA-ScR and PRISMA 2020 is essential for selecting the correct reporting guideline. Using the wrong checklist is a fundamental methodological error that reviewers will flag immediately. For a deeper understanding of the standard systematic review checklist, see our guide on PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines.
| Feature | PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al., 2018) | PRISMA 2020 (Page et al., 2021) |
|---|---|---|
| Study type | Scoping reviews | Systematic reviews and meta-analyses |
| Number of items | 22 | 27 |
| Framework | PCC (Population, Concept, Context) | PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) |
| Quality assessment | Optional (Item 12/15) | Mandatory (Risk of Bias required) |
| Data handling | Data charting | Data extraction |
| Synthesis | Descriptive/narrative only | Quantitative meta-analysis supported |
| Certainty of evidence | Not included | Required (e.g., GRADE) |
| Flow diagram | Required (simplified) | Required (detailed, with reasons for exclusion) |
| Protocol registration | Recommended | Strongly recommended |
| Reference | Tricco et al., Annals of Internal Medicine, 2018 | Page et al., BMJ, 2021 |
The most significant differences are structural. PRISMA 2020 includes items for risk of bias assessment, certainty of evidence (GRADE), and meta-analytic reporting that have no equivalent in scoping review methodology. PRISMA-ScR replaces these with items for data charting and descriptive synthesis that reflect how scoping reviews actually handle evidence.
The terminological differences matter. Scoping reviews "chart" data rather than "extract" it, reflecting the broader and more exploratory approach. Scoping reviews describe eligibility criteria using the PCC framework rather than PICO, because scoping reviews rarely focus on specific interventions or comparisons. These are not cosmetic distinctions, they reflect fundamentally different methodological philosophies.
Using PRISMA 2020 for a scoping review forces you to address items that do not apply (risk of bias, meta-analysis, GRADE) while omitting items that do apply (data charting process, PCC framework). This mismatch confuses reviewers, weakens your methodology, and increases rejection risk.
How to Use the PRISMA-ScR Checklist
Achieving full PRISMA-ScR compliance requires a systematic approach that begins during protocol development and continues through final manuscript preparation. The following four-step process ensures that compliance is built into your workflow rather than retrofitted after writing.
Step 1, Integrate the checklist into your protocol. Before beginning your scoping review, download the official PRISMA-ScR checklist from the EQUATOR Network and map each item to a section of your protocol. This ensures that your protocol addresses every reporting requirement from the outset. When you register your protocol on OSF or another repository, the alignment with PRISMA-ScR demonstrates methodological planning.
Step 2, Use the checklist during data charting. As you chart data from included sources, verify that your charting form captures all variables listed in Items 10 and 11. Pilot the charting form on a small number of sources before applying it to the full set. Record any modifications to the charting process and report them as protocol deviations if applicable.
Step 3, Complete the checklist alongside manuscript writing. Do not wait until the manuscript is finished to check compliance. As you write each section, open the checklist and verify that every item assigned to that section is fully addressed. Mark each item as complete with the corresponding page number and paragraph. This real-time approach prevents the most common compliance failures, items that are partially addressed or addressed in the wrong section.
Step 4, Conduct a final compliance audit before submission. Before submitting your manuscript, complete a final review of all 22 items. For each item, confirm that the information is present, complete, and located in the correct section. Use our free scoping review checklist tool to track compliance item by item and generate a submission-ready checklist document. Many journals require the completed checklist as supplementary material, and submitting it proactively signals rigor to editors and reviewers.
The PRISMA-ScR Flow Diagram
The flow diagram is a mandatory component of every scoping review reported under PRISMA-ScR. It provides a visual summary of the study selection process, showing readers exactly how you moved from initial database searches to the final set of included sources.
The PRISMA-ScR flow diagram follows a simplified structure compared to the PRISMA 2020 version. It includes four main stages: Identification (records identified from databases and other sources), Screening (records after duplicates removed and titles/abstracts screened), Eligibility (full-text sources assessed for eligibility), and Inclusion (sources included in the scoping review).
At each stage, the flow diagram reports numerical counts. How many records were identified from each database? How many duplicates were removed? How many records were excluded at title and abstract screening? How many full-text sources were assessed, and how many were excluded with reasons? How many sources were ultimately included?
The flow diagram serves multiple purposes. It provides transparency about the comprehensiveness of your search. It allows reviewers to verify that the screening process was logical and complete. And it gives readers a quick visual summary that contextualizes the results before they read the detailed findings.
Common errors in PRISMA-ScR flow diagrams include inconsistent numbers (the arithmetic does not add up from one stage to the next), missing reasons for full-text exclusion, and failure to include grey literature sources as a separate identification pathway. Before finalizing your flow diagram, verify that every number is accurate and that the total at each stage accounts for all records from the previous stage.
Common PRISMA-ScR Compliance Mistakes
Reviewing hundreds of scoping review manuscripts reveals consistent patterns of non-compliance. Addressing these common mistakes before submission dramatically improves your chances of passing editorial screening and surviving peer review.
Omitting the study type from the title. Item 1 requires that the title identify the study as a scoping review. This is the simplest item on the checklist, yet a surprising number of manuscripts fail it. If your title does not contain the words "scoping review," you are non-compliant with Item 1.
Incomplete search strategy reporting. Item 8 requires the full electronic search strategy for at least one database. Many authors provide only a summary of search terms without the actual search string, Boolean operators, and database-specific syntax. Reviewers cannot assess the quality of your search without the complete strategy.
Confusing data charting with data extraction. Scoping reviews use the term "data charting" deliberately. Authors who describe their process as "data extraction" signal unfamiliarity with scoping review methodology. Use the correct terminology throughout your manuscript.
Using PICO instead of PCC. Scoping reviews frame eligibility criteria using the PCC framework, Population, Concept, and Context. Using PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) suggests that the author has applied systematic review methodology to a scoping review, which is a methodological error that reviewers will flag.
Missing protocol registration. While Item 5 does not mandate protocol registration, it requires reporting on whether a protocol exists. The strongest compliance involves registering the protocol prospectively (e.g., on OSF) and citing the registration in the manuscript. Manuscripts that neither registered a protocol nor acknowledged this limitation are weaker than those that are transparent about their approach.
Failing to justify the absence of quality assessment. Item 12 requires authors to report whether critical appraisal was conducted. If it was not, which is perfectly acceptable in scoping reviews, the manuscript must state this explicitly and provide a rationale. Simply omitting any mention of quality assessment is a compliance failure.
Inconsistent flow diagram numbers. The flow diagram must present internally consistent numbers. If you identified 2,340 records and removed 456 duplicates, the next stage should show 1,884 records screened. Arithmetic errors undermine the credibility of the entire review.
Weak limitation reporting. Item 19 requires discussion of limitations for both the evidence base and the review methodology. Authors who provide a single sentence about limitations ("This review has some limitations") are non-compliant. Specific, honest limitation reporting, language restrictions, single-reviewer screening, database coverage gaps, strengthens the manuscript.
These mistakes are preventable. By using a structured compliance tracking approach throughout the writing process, you ensure that every item is addressed completely and accurately. Our free scoping review checklist tool guides you through each of the 22 items, flags incomplete responses, and generates a submission-ready compliance document.
For researchers working on their first scoping review, our guide on how to write a scoping review covers the complete methodology from protocol development through publication. And for those who need professional support ensuring PRISMA-ScR compliance, our scoping review service delivers fully compliant manuscripts with completed checklists and flow diagrams included.