Scoping Reviews Explained: When and How to Use Them

Scoping reviews are the fastest-growing review type in health and social sciences — and the most frequently mislabeled. Students call scoping reviews "systematic reviews lite," which misrepresents both. A scoping review is a legitimate review type with its own methodology, its own use cases, and its own reporting standard. This article explains when to use one, when not to, and how to do it properly.

What a scoping review actually is

A scoping review maps the extent, range, and nature of research activity on a topic. It answers questions like "what is known," "what concepts are used," and "what are the gaps" — not "does X work better than Y."

The foundational framework is Arksey and O'Malley (2005), refined by Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien (2010), and formalized as a methodology by the Joanna Briggs Institute (Peters et al., 2020). The reporting standard is PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al., Annals of Internal Medicine 2018). For the full method, see our scoping review guide.

When to choose a scoping review

Choose a scoping review when:

• The literature is heterogeneous in design, population, or outcomes — a PICO question would not fit
• You want to map concepts, definitions, or theoretical frameworks used across a field
• You are scoping a future systematic review and need to confirm feasibility
• You are identifying gaps to inform primary research or policy
• Your question is "what exists" rather than "what works"

Do not choose a scoping review to avoid the rigor of a systematic review. Scoping reviews still require a protocol, exhaustive search, dual screening, and structured extraction — they just do not synthesize effect estimates or assess risk of bias.

The six-stage framework

The JBI/Arksey and O'Malley framework has six stages:

1. Identify the research question using PCC (Population, Concept, Context) rather than PICO
2. Identify relevant studies through an exhaustive, documented search
3. Study selection via dual screening (yes, even in scoping reviews)
4. Chart the data — extract characteristics into a charting form
5. Collate, summarize, and report using descriptive tables and narrative
6. Consult with stakeholders (optional but recommended)

Differences from a systematic review

Five concrete differences:

• Question format: PCC, not PICO
• Search scope: Often broader, includes grey literature as a matter of course (see our grey literature post)
• Risk of bias: Not assessed (JBI 2020 explicitly excludes it from the scoping review method)
• Synthesis: Descriptive and tabular, not statistical
• Conclusion type: Descriptive mapping and gap identification, not efficacy claims

The dual-screening requirement is the same. The protocol requirement is the same. The transparency requirement is the same.

Registration and protocol

Scoping reviews cannot be registered on PROSPERO (which only accepts reviews with health-related outcomes and a risk of bias component). Instead, register on the Open Science Framework (OSF) or publish a protocol in JBI Evidence Synthesis or BMJ Open. Register before you screen.

Reporting against PRISMA-ScR

PRISMA-ScR is a 20-item extension of PRISMA designed for scoping reviews. The key differences from standard PRISMA:

• No risk of bias item
• An item for "critical appraisal of individual sources of evidence" marked as optional
• Synthesis items focus on summary and descriptive analysis rather than quantitative synthesis

Attach a completed PRISMA-ScR checklist when you submit.

Common missteps

1. Using "scoping review" as a label for a loose narrative review. It is not.
2. Skipping dual screening because "it's just a scoping review." No.
3. Writing a PICO question and then calling the review scoping when it fails to meet systematic review criteria. Choose the method to fit the question, not the other way around.
4. Under-reporting the search strategy. PRISMA-S still applies.

Where a scoping review leads

A good scoping review usually ends by framing one of three next moves:

• A systematic review on a narrower, feasible sub-question
• Primary research to fill an identified gap
• Policy synthesis using the mapped evidence base

Whatever the next step, you will want your included sources organized. Drop your extracted characteristics into a structured matrix — it is the backbone of the descriptive synthesis that PRISMA-ScR expects.