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.
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 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).
The PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (Tricco et al., 2018) provides a 22-item checklist for transparent reporting. Published in Annals of Internal Medicine, PRISMA-ScR is now required by most journals that accept scoping reviews.
Key differences from PRISMA 2020 for systematic reviews:
- No risk of bias assessment required. Scoping reviews do not assess the methodological quality of included sources because their purpose is to map evidence, not evaluate its certainty. This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of scoping review methodology.
- No meta-analysis. Scoping reviews present descriptive summaries, not pooled estimates.
- Broader source types. Scoping reviews may include grey literature, policy documents, and theoretical papers alongside empirical studies.
- Results presentation emphasizes tables, charts, and evidence maps rather than forest plots.
The PRISMA-ScR checklist guide walks through each item with examples. Generate your compliant flow diagram with our free prisma flow generator.
The charting framework (data extraction table) is the analytical backbone of a scoping review. It determines what information you collect from each source and directly shapes your ability to answer the research question.
A well-designed charting framework includes:
Standard descriptive fields: author(s), year, country, study design, population, setting, and source type. These fields allow you to map the evidence by geography, chronology, methodology, and population.
Concept-specific fields: these are custom fields aligned with your PCC elements and research question. For a scoping review on telehealth in rural diabetes management, concept-specific fields might include: technology platform, clinical outcomes measured, patient satisfaction metrics, implementation barriers, and healthcare provider perspectives.
Pilot testing the charting form on 2-3 diverse sources before full extraction reveals fields that are unclear, missing, or redundant. JBI methodology requires this step.
Our data extraction form builder creates customizable templates that can be adapted for scoping review charting frameworks.
Need structured support for your scoping review methodology? Research Gold provides professional scoping review services following JBI methodology with PRISMA-ScR compliance. request a detailed cost estimate for your study and share your research question.
Common Scoping Review Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them
Peer reviewers and journal editors consistently identify these issues in scoping review submissions:
Too broad a research question. A scoping review asking "What is known about mental health?" is unmanageable. Even for a mapping exercise, the question needs boundaries defined by the PCC framework. Refine to: "What interventions have been studied for anxiety in university students in the past decade?"
No charting framework. Extracting different information from each source in an ad hoc manner produces unusable results. Define your charting fields before extraction begins.
Conducting quality assessment. Scoping reviews do NOT assess risk of bias or methodological quality. Including a quality assessment confuses the methodology with a systematic review and invites criticism from peer reviewers. If you need to assess quality, you should be conducting a full systematic review instead.
Missing the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Many scoping reviews are submitted without reference to PRISMA-ScR, guaranteeing revision requests or rejection. Complete the 22-item checklist before submission.
Treating it as less rigorous. Scoping reviews require the same rigor in searching, screening, and reporting as systematic reviews. The difference is in purpose and synthesis method, not in methodological standards.
Inadequate search. Some researchers treat scoping reviews as license to search only one database. JBI recommends at least three databases plus grey literature, with the same search documentation standards as systematic reviews.
Scoping reviews are accepted by a growing number of journals:
JBI Evidence Synthesis (formerly JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports) is the natural home for JBI-methodology scoping reviews.
Systematic Reviews (BMC) publishes both systematic and scoping reviews with transparent methodology.
BMJ Open accepts well-conducted scoping reviews, particularly those mapping evidence for clinical guideline development.
Discipline-specific journals increasingly publish scoping reviews. Nursing journals (Journal of Advanced Nursing, Journal of Clinical Nursing), public health journals (BMC Public Health), and education journals regularly feature scoping reviews.
The timeline for a scoping review is typically shorter than a systematic review (8-14 months vs. 12-24 months) because there is no meta-analysis or quality assessment. However, the broader inclusion criteria often generate larger screening volumes, partially offsetting this time savings.
Scoping review methodology may seem simpler than systematic review methodology, but the breadth of evidence and the challenge of meaningful synthesis create their own difficulties. Professional support is most valuable when:
- Your research area generates thousands of records requiring efficient screening workflows
- You need to develop a charting framework that captures complex, multidimensional concepts
- Your results must be presented as evidence maps or visual summaries for policy audiences
- You are conducting a scoping review as a prerequisite for a funded systematic review and need the methodology to be unassailable
Research Gold's scoping review service follows JBI methodology with guaranteed PRISMA-ScR compliance. Our team develops tailored charting frameworks, manages multi-database searches, and produces publication-ready manuscripts. get your free research project proposal or compare our scoping review pricing.