Scoping review help starts with understanding that scoping reviews serve a fundamentally different purpose than systematic reviews. While a systematic review answers a focused clinical question by pooling study results, a scoping review maps the breadth and depth of a research area to identify gaps, clarify concepts, and determine whether a full systematic review is warranted. The JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) methodology and the original Arksey and O'Malley (2005) framework provide the two most widely accepted approaches, and the PRISMA-ScR extension (Tricco et al., 2018) provides the reporting standard.
When a Scoping Review Is the Right Choice for Your Research
Choosing between a scoping review and a systematic review is a methodological decision that determines your entire approach. The distinction goes beyond naming conventions; it affects your research question, eligibility criteria, data charting, and synthesis methods.
Choose a scoping review when:
- You want to map the existing literature on a broad topic to understand what has been studied and what gaps exist
- You need to clarify key concepts or definitions used across a research field
- You want to identify the types of evidence available before committing to a focused systematic review
- Your question is exploratory: "What is known about X?" rather than "What is the effect of X on Y?"
- You are preparing a research agenda or grant application that requires demonstrating the state of the literature
Choose a systematic review when:
- You have a focused, answerable clinical question (PICO format)
- You plan to pool results through meta-analysis
- You need to assess quality of evidence (GRADE)
- Your goal is to inform clinical practice guidelines
The detailed comparison between scoping and systematic reviews covers the full decision framework. Both are valid evidence synthesis methods; the choice depends on your research purpose.
The JBI Scoping Review Methodology
The Joanna Briggs Institute provides the most structured and widely accepted methodology for scoping reviews, updated in their 2020 manual. JBI methodology builds on the original Arksey and O'Malley framework while adding methodological rigor that enhances credibility and publishability.
The JBI approach follows these stages:
1. Define the research question using PCC (Population, Concept, Context) rather than the learn about pico framework used in systematic reviews. PCC reflects the broader, exploratory nature of scoping reviews. Our PICO/PCC framework builder supports both formats.
2. Develop inclusion criteria aligned with the PCC elements. Scoping reviews typically have broader inclusion criteria than systematic reviews, accepting multiple study designs (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, and even opinion papers or policy documents) depending on the research question.
3. Plan and execute the search strategy. JBI recommends a three-step search: (a) initial limited search of PubMed and relevant databases to identify key terms, (b) comprehensive search across all included databases using identified terms, (c) reference list searching of all included sources. This iterative approach is more thorough than a single search execution.
Use our open-access search strategy builder to construct the comprehensive second-step search across multiple databases.
4. Screen and select sources. Like systematic reviews, scoping reviews require at least two independent reviewers for screening. The PRISMA-ScR flow diagram documents the selection process, and our free prisma flow generator creates compliant diagrams.
5. Chart the data. This is the scoping review equivalent of data extraction. A charting framework (data extraction table) captures key information from each included source. JBI recommends pilot-testing the charting form on 2-3 sources before full extraction.
6. Summarize and report results. Scoping reviews present results as narrative summaries, tables, and visual maps of the literature rather than pooled effect estimates. Common presentations include evidence maps, frequency tables, and thematic summaries.
The Arksey and O'Malley Framework: The Original Approach
Arksey and O'Malley (2005) published the original methodological framework for scoping reviews, later enhanced by Levac et al. (2010) and the JBI group. Understanding this foundational framework helps contextualize current methodology.
The original five stages are:
- Identifying the research question (broad, exploratory)
- Identifying relevant studies (comprehensive search without restrictive quality filters)
- Study selection (iterative, team-based)
- Charting the data (narrative, descriptive)
- Collating, summarizing, and reporting results
Arksey and O'Malley also proposed an optional sixth stage: consultation with stakeholders to validate findings and add perspectives not captured in the published literature. JBI methodology formalized this as a recommended element.
The key enhancement from Levac et al. (2010) was requiring at least two reviewers for study selection, clarifying the distinction between scoping and systematic reviews, and emphasizing the importance of linking the research question clearly to the purpose (mapping, gap identification, or concept clarification).