What Is a Scoping Review?
A scoping review is a type of evidence synthesis designed to map the key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps in a research area without formally evaluating the methodological quality of included studies. Where a systematic review answers a specific, focused question with formal quality appraisal, a scoping review asks broader questions: What's been studied? How has it been studied? Where are the gaps? The approach follows a structured methodology, with explicit search strategies, screening processes, and data charting, but its purpose is exploratory rather than confirmatory. Scoping reviews are particularly useful early in a research program when you need to understand the field before investing in a more targeted review or primary study. The seminal framework by Arksey and O'Malley (2005), later refined by Levac and colleagues, provides the most widely used methodological foundation, and the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) now sets the reporting standard.
Why Scoping Reviews Matter in Research
Not every question is ready for a systematic review. If you don't yet know the boundaries of a topic, what concepts are involved, what methods have been used, what populations have been studied, a scoping review gives you that map. It prevents premature narrowing by revealing the full terrain before you commit to a specific path. Scoping reviews also serve a communication function: they produce accessible summaries that help research teams, funders, and stakeholders understand the state of knowledge on a topic without wading through hundreds of individual studies.
How a Scoping Review Works
Scoping reviews follow a five-stage framework (with an optional sixth consultation stage) that balances structure with flexibility.
Stage 1: Identify the Research Question
Scoping review questions are intentionally broad, broader than you'd use for a systematic review. Instead of "Does intervention X improve outcome Y in population Z?", a scoping review might ask "What is known about interventions addressing outcome Y?" The breadth is a feature, not a bug. It lets you capture the full range of evidence and identify patterns you wouldn't see with a narrow lens.
Stage 2: Identify Relevant Studies
Develop a comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases, using broad search terms that match the review's wide scope. Because scoping reviews cast a wide net, they often generate large volumes of results. Supplementing database searches with reference list scanning, expert consultation, and gray literature searches helps ensure coverage.
Stage 3: Select Studies
Apply predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, but expect the criteria to evolve as you become more familiar with the literature, this iterative refinement is accepted in scoping review methodology in a way it isn't in systematic reviews. Screen titles and abstracts first, then full texts. Two reviewers are recommended but not always required, particularly for very large bodies of literature where calibrated single-reviewer screening may be necessary.
Stage 4: Chart the Data
Instead of the detailed data extraction forms used in systematic reviews, scoping reviews use "data charting", a process of recording key information about each study in a standardized table. Common charting categories include author, year, study design, population, concept/intervention, and key findings. The charting form develops iteratively as the team encounters the included studies.
Stage 5: Collate, Summarize, and Report
Organize the charted data to present an overview of the evidence landscape. This typically involves numerical summaries (counts of studies by design, population, or topic), thematic groupings, and visual maps (such as evidence gap maps or bubble charts). The reporting follows PRISMA-ScR guidelines, which require a flow diagram and a structured presentation of results.
Stage 6 (Optional): Consultation
Arksey and O'Malley's framework includes an optional consultation stage where stakeholders, practitioners, or subject-matter experts review the findings and offer additional perspectives. This step grounds the review in practical relevance and can surface evidence or insights that database searches missed.
When to Use a Scoping Review
- Exploring a new or emerging field. When a topic is too new or too broadly defined for a focused systematic review question, a scoping review maps what exists and identifies where deeper investigation is warranted.
- Preparing for a systematic review. A scoping review helps you determine whether enough evidence exists to justify a full systematic review and helps you refine the review question and inclusion criteria.
- Identifying evidence gaps for research agendas. Funders and research organizations use scoping reviews to determine where investment is most needed.
- Clarifying key concepts and definitions. When a field uses terminology inconsistently, a scoping review can map how concepts are defined and operationalized across studies.
- Informing policy discussions. When policymakers need a high-level understanding of what's known about a topic, a scoping review provides that overview without the time commitment of a full systematic review.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Including quality assessment when it's not warranted. Scoping reviews explicitly do not assess methodological quality, that's what distinguishes them from systematic reviews. Adding quality appraisal muddies the methodology and confuses readers about what type of review you've conducted.
- Treating it as a shortcut systematic review. A scoping review isn't a faster or easier version of a systematic review, it serves a fundamentally different purpose. If your question is focused and you need to assess the strength of evidence, you need a systematic review, not a scoping review.
- Producing only a list of studies. A good scoping review synthesizes and maps the evidence, identifying patterns, clusters, and gaps. Simply listing what you found isn't synthesis, it's a bibliography.
How Quali-Fi Supports Scoping Reviews
Quali-Fi helps research teams turn scoping review findings into action, once you've mapped the evidence landscape and identified gaps, you can design and deploy primary studies (surveys, interviews, focus groups) directly in the platform. Collaborative data charting tools keep your team aligned on extraction categories with full version history and audit trails.
Frequently Asked Questions
How is a scoping review different from a narrative review?
A scoping review follows a structured methodology with documented search strategies and systematic data charting. A narrative review is more flexible, relying on the author's expertise to select and interpret literature without requiring the same level of methodological transparency.
Can I publish a scoping review in a peer-reviewed journal?
Yes. Scoping reviews are widely accepted in academic journals, especially when they follow the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. Their popularity has grown significantly over the past decade as researchers recognize their value for mapping emerging fields.
How long does a scoping review take?
Typically 3-9 months, depending on the breadth of the topic and the volume of literature. They're generally faster than systematic reviews because they skip formal quality assessment and detailed data extraction, but the broad search scope can produce large volumes of records to screen.
Related Topics
- Systematic Review
- Literature Review Methodology
- Rapid Evidence Assessment
- Narrative Review
- Integrative Review
Map the evidence, then fill the gaps. Start a free trial with Quali-Fi and turn your scoping review into a primary research plan.