A scoping review answers a different kind of question from a systematic review. Instead of "does this work," it asks "what is out there." It maps a body of literature, its size, its range, the types of evidence it contains, and the gaps within it, rather than resolving a narrow question about an effect. That different goal drives a different method, and getting the method right is what separates a genuine scoping review from a literature review wearing a more serious label.
This guide walks through how a scoping review is actually conducted, from the framework that underpins it to the standard you report against.
A scoping review uses systematic, transparent methods to map the evidence on a broad topic. The dominant methodological framework comes from Arksey and O'Malley, later refined by Levac and colleagues, with formal guidance from JBI. Questions are usually framed with PCC (Population, Concept, Context), and reviews are reported against PRISMA-ScR, the scoping review extension of PRISMA.
The process mirrors a systematic review's rigor in searching and selection, but it maps rather than appraises, and it does not pool results.
Scoping review methodology rests on a small number of well-established frameworks, and it helps to know where they come from.
The original framework was set out by Arksey and O'Malley, who proposed a series of stages for conducting a scoping study. It remains the foundation most scoping reviews build on.
Levac and colleagues later refined that framework, clarifying several of the stages and adding practical guidance, particularly around consultation and the process of charting and reporting results.
JBI (the Joanna Briggs Institute) provides detailed, current methodological guidance for scoping reviews, including the use of the PCC framework and how to structure the review. Many teams follow JBI guidance as their working manual.
You do not have to choose exclusively among these; in practice scoping reviews draw on all three, using Arksey and O'Malley's stages, Levac's refinements, and JBI's detailed guidance together.
Where systematic reviews use PICO, scoping reviews typically use PCC: Population, Concept, Context.
Population is who the review concerns, though often defined more broadly than in a systematic review. Concept is the central idea being mapped, which is wider than a specific intervention and might be a phenomenon, a practice, or a field of activity. Context is the setting or circumstances of interest, such as a geographic region, a care setting, or a policy environment.
PCC produces a broader question than PICO by design, because a scoping review is meant to map breadth rather than answer a narrow effectiveness question. If you find yourself wanting to specify a comparison and a measurable outcome, that is a sign your question is actually a systematic review question. For more on question frameworks, see PICO, PICOS, and other frameworks.
1. Identify the question and objectives. Frame a broad question with PCC and state clearly what mapping the evidence is meant to achieve, for example identifying gaps or clarifying how a concept is used.
2. Write and register a protocol. As with any rigorous review, plan before you search. Note that PROSPERO does not accept scoping reviews, so register elsewhere, such as OSF. See where to register your protocol.
3. Identify relevant studies. Build a comprehensive, documented search. Because scoping questions are broad, this search often returns very large numbers of records, more than a comparable systematic review.
4. Select studies. Screen against your eligibility criteria, ideally in duplicate. Scoping reviews typically include a wider range of study designs than systematic reviews, since the goal is to capture the breadth of evidence rather than only the strongest designs.
5. Chart the data. Rather than extracting outcome data for synthesis, you chart the characteristics of each included source: what it studied, its design, its setting, its key findings. Charting is the scoping review's version of data extraction, and the charting form should be piloted and refined.
6. Collate, summarize, and report the results. Present the mapped evidence, often with tables, charts, and diagrams showing how the literature is distributed across concepts, designs, populations, or time. The output is a map, so visual presentation matters.
7. Optional consultation. Levac and colleagues emphasize an optional consultation stage, engaging stakeholders or experts to add perspective to the findings. This is not universal but can strengthen the review's relevance.
Two omissions define the method as much as its steps.
Scoping reviews do not usually appraise the quality of included studies. Because the aim is to describe what evidence exists rather than judge whether it supports a conclusion, formal risk-of-bias assessment is traditionally omitted. This convention is being debated, and some scoping reviews now include a light appraisal, so state your approach explicitly.
Scoping reviews do not pool results. There is no meta-analysis, because the review is not answering an effectiveness question. Attempting to pool data is a sign the question should have been a systematic review.
These are not shortcuts. They follow from the review's purpose. A scoping review that starts appraising quality and pooling effects has drifted into being a systematic review with a broad question, which is a different and usually less coherent project. For the full comparison, see systematic review vs scoping review.
Report your scoping review against PRISMA-ScR, the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. It adapts the PRISMA checklist to the scoping context and, like the main standard, includes a flow diagram accounting for records from the search to the final included set. Following the right reporting standard signals that you understood which method you were running, which reviewers notice.
Confusing it with a literature review. A scoping review is systematic in its search and selection. Skipping the protocol, the documented search, or duplicate screening turns it into an ordinary literature review.
Trying to answer an effectiveness question. If your real question is whether something works, you need a systematic review. Scoping reviews map; they do not judge effects.
Appraising and pooling out of habit. Formal quality appraisal and meta-analysis do not belong in a standard scoping review. If you find yourself doing them, reconsider whether your question was a systematic review question.
Registering on PROSPERO. PROSPERO does not accept scoping reviews. Use OSF or another suitable register.
Weak charting. Poorly planned charting produces a disorganized map. Design and pilot the charting form as carefully as you would a data extraction form.
What framework should I use for a scoping review? Build on Arksey and O'Malley's stages, refined by Levac and colleagues, and follow JBI's detailed guidance. Most scoping reviews use all three together.
What question format do scoping reviews use? PCC: Population, Concept, Context. It produces a broader question than PICO, matching the scoping review's mapping purpose.
Do scoping reviews assess study quality? Traditionally no, because they map evidence rather than judge it. Some now include a light appraisal, so report your approach explicitly.
What reporting standard applies? PRISMA-ScR, the scoping review extension of PRISMA.
Can I register a scoping review on PROSPERO? No. PROSPERO does not accept scoping reviews. Use OSF Registries or another suitable register.
A scoping review maps a field using systematic, transparent methods: a broad PCC question, a documented search, duplicate screening, and structured charting, reported against PRISMA-ScR. What sets it apart is what it leaves out. It does not usually appraise study quality and it does not pool results, because its purpose is to describe the evidence rather than to answer an effectiveness question.
Follow the established frameworks, chart carefully, and resist the pull toward appraisal and pooling. If those start to feel necessary, your question was probably a systematic review question. For that comparison, see systematic review vs scoping review.
Mapping a field? Verflux supports the search, deduplication, screening, and charting that scoping reviews depend on.
All analytical features included in the free trial. No credit card, no installation, no R or Python.
Create free account