How to Conduct a Scoping Review: A Practical Overview

Defining the research question

Scoping review questions are typically broader than systematic review questions, often framed around what evidence exists, how a concept is defined across the literature, or where research gaps sit within a field, rather than a narrow PICO-style effectiveness question. A population-concept-context framework, PCC, is commonly used instead of PICO, reflecting this broader scope.

Developing the protocol

Scoping review protocols are typically registered on the Open Science Framework rather than PROSPERO, since PROSPERO does not currently accept scoping review protocols. The protocol should still specify your search strategy, eligibility criteria, and charting approach in advance, even though scoping methodology allows more flexibility to refine these as the review progresses than a systematic review does.

Search strategy

Scoping review searches are often intentionally broader than systematic review searches, since the goal is mapping breadth rather than exhaustively capturing every study meeting narrow criteria. This still requires a documented, multi-database search strategy -- breadth does not mean an undocumented or haphazard approach.

Study selection

Eligibility criteria in a scoping review can evolve somewhat as the reviewers gain familiarity with the actual shape of the literature, which is a legitimate and expected part of the methodology, unlike in a systematic review where criteria should stay fixed once set. Any evolution should still be documented transparently.

Charting the data

Rather than the structured data extraction of a systematic review aimed at feeding a synthesis or meta-analysis, scoping reviews use a charting process that captures key characteristics of each included source -- study design, population, key findings, relevant concepts -- organized to support a mapping or narrative summary rather than a pooled statistical output.

Collating and summarizing results

Scoping review results are typically presented as tables, charts, or maps showing the distribution of evidence across relevant categories, alongside a narrative summary describing the overall landscape, key gaps, and patterns in how the topic has been studied. This differs meaningfully from a systematic review's typically forest-plot-and-narrative-conclusion structure.

What a scoping review does not include

Formal risk-of-bias assessment of included studies is not a standard, required component of scoping review methodology, though some scoping reviews include an optional quality assessment if there is a specific reason to comment on it. This is a genuine methodological difference from systematic reviews, not an oversight -- the mapping purpose of a scoping review doesn't require the same evidentiary weighing a systematic review's conclusions depend on.

Reporting with PRISMA-ScR

PRISMA-ScR, the scoping review extension of PRISMA, provides the reporting checklist for this review type, with items reflecting scoping methodology's distinct structure -- including reporting requirements around the charting process and the PCC framework that don't appear in the standard PRISMA 2020 checklist for systematic reviews.

A realistic timeline

Scoping reviews often move faster than systematic reviews given the absence of formal risk-of-bias assessment and typically less rigid eligibility criteria, but the breadth of the search and the volume of records to screen can still make this a substantial undertaking, particularly for genuinely broad or emerging topics where the literature hasn't yet been well mapped. Planning for several months rather than a few weeks is realistic for a properly conducted scoping review on a non-trivial topic.

Common reasons scoping reviews get commissioned

Scoping reviews are frequently the first step before a team commits to a full systematic review, specifically to establish whether enough focused primary evidence exists to justify one, and to identify how the existing literature has framed and defined key concepts before locking in a narrower PICO question. They're also commonly used by funders and policymakers who need a broad landscape view of a research area before committing resources to a specific, narrower question, and by graduate students mapping a field before settling on a dissertation research question.

A frequent point of confusion worth addressing directly

Because scoping reviews follow a genuinely systematic, transparent process -- registered protocol, documented search, PRISMA-ScR reporting -- it's easy to see why the word "systematic" sometimes gets applied loosely to describe them, even though systematic review is a specific, different methodology. Being precise about which one you've actually conducted, both in your own writing and when discussing your work with supervisors or collaborators, avoids a credibility problem later when someone familiar with both methodologies notices the mismatch between your stated approach and what your methods section actually describes.

Scoping reviews and stakeholder involvement

JBI methodology for scoping reviews explicitly supports an optional stakeholder consultation stage, where relevant practitioners, policymakers, or affected groups are consulted to help interpret findings or identify additional relevant sources the formal search may have missed. This stage isn't required, but including it, and reporting it transparently when you do, can meaningfully strengthen a scoping review's practical relevance beyond what the database search alone captures. Reporting whether and how you used this optional stage, including who was consulted and how their input shaped your final synthesis, belongs in your methods section alongside your search and charting methodology. Even a brief paragraph describing who was consulted, how they were selected, and what specific input they provided gives readers enough transparency to judge how much weight this additional layer of input should carry alongside your formal database search results. Reviews that use this stage well tend to produce maps and narrative summaries that feel genuinely useful to the practitioners and policymakers who read them, rather than technically complete but disconnected from how the field actually experiences the topic being mapped. That practical grounding is often what makes a scoping review genuinely useful to the people it's meant to serve, beyond just satisfying an academic reporting requirement. That distinction is worth keeping in mind throughout the whole process, from question framing through the final written summary.