Interactive PRISMA-ScR checklist for scoping reviews based on Tricco et al. (2018). Track all 22 reporting items, record page references and notes, and export a compliance summary for journal submission.
Identify the report as a scoping review.
Provide a structured summary that includes, as applicable: background, objectives, eligibility criteria, sources of evidence, charting methods, results, and conclusions.
Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. Explain why the review questions/objectives lend themselves to a scoping review approach.
Provide an explicit statement of the questions and objectives being addressed with reference to their key elements (e.g., population or participants, concepts, and context) or other relevant key elements used to conceptualize the review questions and/or objectives.
Indicate whether a review protocol exists; state if and where it can be accessed (e.g., a web address); and if available, provide registration information, including the registration number.
Specify characteristics of the sources of evidence used as eligibility criteria (e.g., years considered, language, and publication status), and provide a rationale.
Describe all information sources in the search (e.g., databases with dates of coverage and contact with authors to identify additional sources), as well as the date the most recent search was executed.
Present the full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
State the process for selecting sources of evidence (i.e., screening and eligibility) included in the scoping review.
Describe the methods of charting data from the included sources of evidence (e.g., calibrated forms or forms that have been tested by the team before their use, and whether data charting was done independently or in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
List and define all variables for which data were sought and any assumptions and simplifications made.
If done, provide a rationale for conducting a critical appraisal of included sources of evidence; describe the methods used and how this information was used in any data synthesis (if applicable).
Describe the methods of handling and summarizing the data that were charted.
Give the numbers of sources of evidence screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally using a flow diagram.
For each source of evidence, present characteristics for which data were charted and provide the citations.
If done, present data on critical appraisal of included sources of evidence (see item 12).
Summarize the main results (including an overview of concepts, themes, and types of evidence available), link to the review questions and objectives, and consider the relevance to key groups.
Discuss the limitations of the scoping review process.
Provide a general interpretation of the results with respect to the review questions and objectives, as well as potential implications and/or next steps.
Describe sources of funding for the included sources of evidence, as well as sources of funding for the scoping review. Describe the role of the funders of the scoping review.
Provide the registration number and where it was registered (if applicable).
Declare any conflicts of interest of the review authors.
Go through all 22 PRISMA-ScR items section by section. Read the description to understand what each item requires in your manuscript.
For each item, select Yes (fully reported), Partial (partially addressed), No (not reported), or N/A (not applicable to your review).
Record the page number or section where each item is addressed in your manuscript. Add notes for items that need revision.
Copy the summary text or export the full checklist as a CSV file to include as a supplementary file with your journal submission.
While both checklists share a common heritage, PRISMA-ScR is specifically designed for scoping reviews. It uses different terminology (e.g., 'data charting' instead of 'data extraction') and does not require meta-analytic reporting items. Use the correct checklist for your review type.
The primary purpose of a scoping review is to map the available evidence on a broad topic, identify gaps, and clarify concepts. Unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews typically do not assess risk of bias or pool quantitative results.
Many journals now require a completed PRISMA-ScR checklist as a supplementary file. Thorough reporting of all 22 items ensures readers can evaluate the rigor of your methods and reproduce your scoping review.
Always cite the original PRISMA-ScR publication: Tricco AC, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-473. This is the authoritative reference for the checklist and provides detailed explanations and examples for each of the 22 items.
The PRISMA scoping review checklist was developed by Tricco et al. (2018) as a reporting guideline specifically tailored to the methodology of scoping reviews. Unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews aim to map the breadth of evidence on a topic rather than synthesize findings for a specific clinical question. The PRISMA-ScR template extends the original PRISMA framework with 20 essential items and 2 optional items that reflect this broader purpose — covering the rationale for choosing a scoping review design, the inclusion of all source types (not just primary studies), and the charting of results rather than quantitative synthesis. The methodological foundations of modern scoping reviews trace back to the seminal framework by Arksey and O'Malley (2005), which established the five-stage approach (identifying the research question, identifying relevant studies, study selection, charting the data, and collating results), later enhanced by Levac et al. (2010) with recommendations for team consultation and iterative searching. PRISMA-ScR builds on these foundational frameworks to provide a standardized reporting structure that journals and funders now widely expect.
This scoping review reporting tool structures the 22-item PRISMA-ScR checklist into an interactive workflow that tracks completion, allows per-item notes, and exports a compliance summary. The checklist should be integrated from the protocol stage onward, not applied retroactively at manuscript submission. The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Aromataris & Munn, 2020) recommends that scoping review teams map their planned methods to each PRISMA-ScR item during protocol development, ensuring that data collection captures all information needed for transparent reporting — including the population, concept, and context (PCC) framework that replaces PICO in scoping review methodology. JBI Evidence Synthesis, one of the leading journals for scoping review publications, requires PRISMA-ScR compliance for all submitted manuscripts and provides dedicated guidance on best practices for data charting and evidence mapping. For teams planning to register their scoping review protocol, the PRISMA-P extension for protocols offers a complementary checklist that ensures the planned methods are documented transparently before the review begins.
Several PRISMA-ScR items require outputs from dedicated tools. Item 6 (eligibility criteria) is formalized using a structured framework — our inclusion and exclusion criteria builder supports both PICOS and PCC frameworks. Item 8 (search strategy) requires a full electronic search strategy for at least one database, which our search strategy builder can generate with Boolean operators and field tags for PubMed, Embase, and other databases. Item 14 (selection of sources) requires a flow diagram documenting the screening process — our PRISMA flow diagram generator produces the PRISMA 2020-compliant figure.
Although critical appraisal (item 12) is optional in scoping reviews, many funding bodies and journals increasingly expect it. When included, our JBI critical appraisal checklists provide design-specific tools covering RCTs, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, qualitative research, and prevalence studies. Peters et al. (2020) note that even when formal critical appraisal is not conducted, scoping reviews should acknowledge this as a limitation. The Covidence scoping review module now supports structured data charting aligned with PRISMA-ScR requirements, enabling teams to track item completion within the same platform used for screening. Completing all PRISMA-ScR items before submission significantly increases the likelihood of acceptance, as journals indexed in PubMed and Scopus increasingly mandate PRISMA-ScR compliance for scoping review manuscripts.
PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) is a 22-item checklist developed by Tricco et al. (2018) to guide the transparent reporting of scoping reviews. It extends the original PRISMA checklist with items specific to scoping review methodology, such as data charting processes and the mapping of evidence rather than synthesis of effect estimates.
PRISMA 2020 is designed for systematic reviews that synthesize quantitative evidence, often with meta-analysis. PRISMA-ScR is tailored for scoping reviews, which aim to map the available evidence on a topic rather than answer a specific clinical question. Key differences include: PRISMA-ScR uses 'data charting' instead of 'data extraction,' does not require risk of bias assessment (though it can be included), and focuses on describing the breadth of evidence rather than pooling effect estimates.
Use a scoping review when you want to: (1) map the extent and nature of available evidence on a broad topic; (2) identify key concepts, evidence gaps, or types of evidence; (3) clarify definitions or conceptual boundaries; or (4) determine whether a full systematic review is feasible. If your goal is to answer a focused clinical question with quantitative synthesis, a systematic review with meta-analysis is more appropriate.
Critical appraisal (risk of bias assessment) is not mandatory in scoping reviews, and PRISMA-ScR item 12 is marked as optional. However, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group and an increasing number of journals recommend including critical appraisal when feasible. If you choose to do it, report the tools used and how the results informed your conclusions.
The definitive reference is: Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-473. doi:10.7326/M18-0850. This paper provides the 22-item checklist with detailed explanations and examples for each item. It should be cited whenever PRISMA-ScR is used.
The PRISMA-ScR checklist contains 22 items: 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The optional items are critical appraisal of sources (item 12) and assessment of risk of bias across studies (item 15). Even optional items should be addressed in the manuscript — if not conducted, explain why. The checklist covers title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and funding.
Yes. PRISMA-ScR item 14 requires a flow diagram showing the selection of sources of evidence. While scoping reviews use the term “sources of evidence” rather than “studies,” the flow diagram follows the same structure as PRISMA 2020, including identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion phases with reasons for exclusion at each stage.
Data charting is the scoping review equivalent of data extraction. While systematic reviews extract specific quantitative data for meta-analysis (e.g., means, SDs, event rates), scoping reviews chart broader descriptive information to map the evidence landscape — such as study characteristics, key concepts, populations, and methodologies. Data charting forms are typically more flexible and iterative than systematic review extraction forms.
Our research methodologists can guide you through every stage of your scoping review, from protocol development and search strategy to data charting and manuscript preparation.