A scoping review maps what has been published on a broad topic: which kinds of evidence exist, how the research was done, how a concept is defined and where the gaps lie. It has a protocol and a documented search like a systematic review, but it asks a wider question and does not weigh the studies it finds.
This guide to how to do a scoping review, published by EdCitation, takes each step from its source, read on 26 September 2026: the founding papers, the current JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, PRISMA-ScR, PROSPERO and OSF. Where the sources disagree, as on consultation, we say so.
EdCitation never screens, charts or writes a scoping review. Its part is the sources: Find sources to look over a field before the protocol, Cite a source to build each entry, and Verify references to check the final list.
When does a scoping review fit?
When the question is "what is out there, and how has it been studied?" rather than "does it work?". Munn et al. (2018) give six indications, all kept in the JBI manual's current chapter (Aromataris et al., 2024):
| Reason to scope | What the review produces |
|---|---|
| Identify the kinds of evidence in a field | A map of study types, settings and sources |
| Clarify key concepts or definitions | How a term is defined and used |
| Examine how research on a topic is done | The designs, outcomes and measures in use |
| Identify characteristics of a concept | Material for a conceptual framework |
| Prepare for a systematic review | The narrower question worth reviewing next |
| Identify and analyse knowledge gaps | What has not been studied, and where |
A question about an intervention's effect, a test's accuracy or patients' experience needs a systematic review instead, which our guide to systematic reviews covers. Types of literature review places the scoping review among the rest.
It is not the lighter option. The JBI chapter warns that a broad scoping review can outlast a focused systematic review; Arksey and O'Malley (2005), with 204 studies, needed three full-time equivalent staff for six months plus an information officer.
Which scoping review framework should I follow?
Most reviews now follow the JBI method, which builds on two earlier papers. Name yours in the protocol.
Arksey and O'Malley, then Levac et al.
Arksey and O'Malley (2005) set out five stages (identify the question, identify relevant studies, select studies, chart the data, then collate, summarise and report) with an optional consultation exercise alongside, and stressed that the process is iterative. Levac et al. (2010) kept the stages and sharpened each: link purpose to question, balance feasibility against breadth, select studies in pairs, chart as a team, add a numerical summary and a thematic analysis, state the implications, and make consultation required.
The JBI manual, chapter 10
The 2024 JBI manual (Aromataris et al., 2024) adds a protocol written in advance, a requirement of the JBI method, and runs in nine steps from question to conclusions, with knowledge users involved throughout. It dropped the name "systematic scoping review" in 2020, since every evidence synthesis should be systematic.
| Step | What you do | Where EdCitation fits |
|---|---|---|
| Question | Write the objective and a PCC question | Find sources for a first look at the field |
| Protocol | Set criteria, search plan, charting form and analysis plan | Find sources' filters, to check for existing reviews |
| Search | Run the documented search in named databases and grey literature | Not a substitute for the databases |
| Selection | Screen titles and abstracts, then full texts, in pairs | None: screening is yours |
| Charting | Record each source's details on a piloted form | A free account's tagged list holds the sources |
| Results | Counts, tables, charts, maps and a narrative | Cite a source for the entries |
| Report | Check against PRISMA-ScR | Verify references for the list |
How do I write a PCC question?
Name the population, the concept and the context, and leave out intervention, comparison and outcome: the JBI chapter recommends the PCC framework because a scoping question generates hypotheses rather than testing one. Freer et al. (2026), a protocol in JBI Evidence Synthesis, shows the form:
- Population: people working in teams in acute health care.
- Concept: team adaptation, with adaptive triggers, outcomes and capacity.
- Context: acute health care, excluding outpatient and rehabilitation settings.
Two exceptions are allowed. An element can be dropped when the question does not need it (a review of theories may have no population), and a PICO or PECO question is accepted when the scoping review is the first stage of a systematic review, so that the two sets of criteria line up.
Where can a scoping review protocol be registered?
On OSF, in a journal that takes protocols, or in a repository with a DOI. Not in PROSPERO, whose eligibility page (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, n.d.) says "Scoping reviews are not currently accepted but may be in future."
OSF Registries and journals
OSF Registries hosts the Generalized Systematic Review Registration form, public since 10 April 2023; its designers, van den Akker et al. (2023), name the scoping review among the types it serves. JBI Evidence Synthesis publishes scoping review protocols: Freer et al. (2026) is one, with its OSF registration printed beside the abstract. The JBI chapter adds that journal publication is not required and can be slow and costly, and that a university repository can give a protocol a DOI.
The review protocol is what you will be held to: PRISMA-ScR item 5 asks where it can be read, and the JBI chapter asks that every later change be reported with its reason.
How do I search for and select sources?
Search comprehensively and record everything, then screen in two stages, ideally with two people working independently.
The documented search
The JBI chapter holds the search to a systematic review's standard: explicit, comprehensive and repeatable. PRISMA-ScR asks for every information source, the date of the last search, and the full search strategy for at least one database. Freer et al. (2026) plan MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, with no language or date limits.
Grey literature searching matters more here than in most systematic reviews, especially in young fields. Decide in the protocol which sites you will search and when you will stop; for Google Scholar, set how many results you will screen, and search in a private window so your history does not shape them.
Selecting the evidence
The JBI chapter's steps, in order:
- Combine every record in one file, remove duplicates and count them.
- Pilot the screening: in one method it describes, the team screens 25 random records and starts only at 75% agreement.
- Screen titles and abstracts with two people deciding independently, or have a second person check a share of decisions or every exclusion. The JBI chapter advises against single screening outside rapid scoping reviews.
- Screen full texts the same way, with a reason for every exclusion.
- Run citation searching backwards and forwards, or say in the limitations why you could not.
Levac et al. (2010) add team meetings at the start, middle and end of screening.
How do I chart the data?
Record the same details from every included source on a form built for your question and tested first. Arksey and O'Malley (2005) borrowed "charting" from qualitative research for what a systematic review calls data extraction; their Excel form held authors, year, location, intervention, populations, aims, methods, outcome measures and main results.
The JBI chapter and Pollock et al. (2023) set the current practice:
- Write a data extraction form with guidance for each item, and put a draft in the protocol.
- Pilot it on two or three sources of each type, then agree changes as a team.
- Use set answers, such as drop-down lists of countries or designs, so entries can be counted.
- Extract only what answers your questions, and be very wary of effect sizes: without appraisal or pooling they invite conclusions a scoping review cannot support.
- Have two people extract each source, or one extract and another check.
Levac et al. (2010) expect the form to evolve; the JBI chapter asks that changes stay in the pilot where possible, and later ones be reported as deviations.
Is the consultation stage optional?
That depends on your framework, so decide in the protocol. Arksey and O'Malley (2005) made it optional, though their stakeholders supplied extra references and a broader idea of what effectiveness meant for carers. Levac et al. (2010) called it "an essential component". Tricco et al. (2018) removed it from PRISMA-ScR's charting item when their panel could not agree, treating it as knowledge translation open to any review. The JBI chapter now speaks of engaging knowledge users, such as patients, practitioners and policymakers, at any stage.
How should scoping review results be presented?
As counts, tables and charts with a narrative, never as a pooled answer. Pollock et al. (2023) describe frequency counts and percentages, plus basic qualitative content analysis where definitions must be sorted into categories; thematic synthesis belongs to systematic reviews. For display they suggest tables, a world heat map, a tree graph, waffle charts and word clouds, each with its narrative, and where the question is where evidence exists, an evidence map or evidence and gap map. Watch for double counting: a study and a review that includes it can enter your totals twice.
What does the PRISMA-ScR checklist ask you to report?
Twenty essential items and two optional ones. Tricco et al. (2018) adapted the 27 items of the original PRISMA: five were judged not applicable (13, 15, 16, 22, 23), and the two on risk of bias (12, 19) became optional items on critical appraisal.
| Section | Items | What you report |
|---|---|---|
| Title and abstract | 1, 2 | "Scoping review" in the title; a structured summary |
| Introduction | 3, 4 | Why a scoping approach fits; the question in PCC terms |
| Methods | 5 to 11, 14 | Protocol and registration, eligibility, sources with dates, one full search, selection, charting, data items, how charted data were summarised |
| Results | 17, 18, 20, 21 | Numbers screened and included with reasons for exclusion, ideally in a flow diagram; each source's characteristics and data; the summary |
| Discussion | 24 to 26 | Main results, limitations, conclusions and next steps |
| Funding | 27 | Funding of the review and of the included sources |
The checklist is on the PRISMA site (PRISMA, n.d.); Pollock et al. (2023) advise attaching it with page numbers checked against the proofs. The JBI chapter says a new version is due in 2026, so check before you submit.
What can a scoping review not claim?
Whether an intervention works, how well, or how good the evidence is.
- No appraisal by default. Munn et al. (2018) say risk of bias is generally not assessed, and the JBI chapter does not advocate critical appraisal; where it is done, it only describes the field.
- No effect estimates or vote counting. A question that needs a pooled result is a systematic review question.
- Gaps with a caveat. Arksey and O'Malley (2005) note that where research exists but is poor, a scoping review will not show it, since quality is not assessed.
- Options, not recommendations. The JBI chapter limits implications for practice to options, and to the next study or systematic review worth doing.
How EdCitation helps with a scoping review
EdCitation is the best tool for a scoping review's sources: every entry it gives you comes from the publisher's own record, never from a guess, and a review citing hundreds of sources cannot afford one wrong entry. Screening, charting, appraisal and the writing stay with you.
Before the protocol. Find sources, free with no account, searches about 300 million published works. It is not a bibliographic database for the documented search, and its results do not belong in your flow diagram, but it is quick for mapping a field and spotting existing reviews. On 26 September 2026 we searched social prescribing, in the title as an exact phrase, most cited first: 1,427 results. With the kind-of-study filter set to literature or scoping review there were 121; of the 89 on the first page, 45 had "scoping" in the title. The top scoping review, Oster and colleagues' 2023 review of social prescribing models, came third, behind two systematic reviews whose abstracts say "systematic literature review". The filter reads what a paper calls itself, so it also let in a feasibility study's design paper, two glossary papers, a Delphi study and a podcast episode. The review-article source type returned 61 and caught none of the 45: the index had filed them as articles (28), preprints (14) and three other types. Use the kind-of-study filter, and read every abstract.
Citing. Give Cite a source a DOI, PubMed ID, ISBN, title or web address and it returns the entry in any of six styles (APA 7, MLA 9, Harvard, IEEE, Vancouver, Chicago 18 author-date), with the source checked for retraction. Oster's DOI, in APA 7:
Oster, C., Skelton, C., Leibbrandt, R., Hines, S., & Bonevski, B. (2023). Models of social prescribing to address non-medical needs in adults: A scoping review. BMC Health Services Research, 23(1), Article 642. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09650-x
Keeping and checking. A free account keeps reference lists in which each source can carry tags, say one per chart category, and be filtered by them; a list downloads as RIS or BibTeX for a reference manager, or as a Word document (tagging references shows how). We ran three method references through Verify references, one with Levac's year set to 2011. Two were verified; Levac's was marked doubtful ("check this"), with the reason "The work was published in 2010, not 2011". A reference that cannot be checked is never reported as not found. For the manuscript, References from a file also pairs each in-text citation with its entry; a free account gets three checks a month, and Pro, at $8 a month, has no limit.
Quick questions
Do I need a protocol for a scoping review?
Under the JBI method, yes: the JBI manual (Aromataris et al., 2024) treats an a priori protocol as a requirement. It can be registered on OSF or given a DOI in a repository rather than published in a journal.
Can I register a scoping review in PROSPERO?
No. PROSPERO's eligibility page says scoping reviews are not currently accepted, though they may be in future. OSF's generalised registration form covers them.
Does a scoping review need critical appraisal?
Not by default. PRISMA-ScR makes it optional and the JBI manual does not advocate it; where it is done, it only describes the field.
Can EdCitation find existing scoping reviews on my topic?
Yes, as a first check. Find sources filters by kind of study, including literature or scoping review, free; read each abstract, because the filter goes by what a paper calls itself.
References
- Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
- Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., Porritt, K., Pilla, B., & Jordan, Z. (Eds.). (2024). JBI manual for evidence synthesis (Chapter 10, Scoping reviews). JBI. https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/355862497/10.+Scoping+reviews
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. (n.d.). Eligibility for inclusion. PROSPERO, University of York. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/help/eligibility
- Freer, D., Eppich, W., & Davies, E. (2026). Team adaptation in acute health care: A scoping review protocol. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 24(9), 1935–1943. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-25-00528
- Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, Article 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
- Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), Article 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
- Pollock, D., Peters, M. D. J., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Alexander, L., Tricco, A. C., Evans, C., de Moraes, É. B., Godfrey, C. M., Pieper, D., Saran, A., Stern, C., & Munn, Z. (2023). Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 21(3), 520–532. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00123
- PRISMA. (n.d.). PRISMA for scoping reviews. https://www.prisma-statement.org/scoping
- Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., . . . Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
- van den Akker, O. R., Peters, G.-J. Y., Bakker, C. J., Carlsson, R., Coles, N. A., Corker, K. S., Feldman, G., Moreau, D., Nordström, T., Pickering, J. S., Riegelman, A., Topor, M. K., van Veggel, N., Yeung, S. K., Call, M., Mellor, D. T., & Pfeiffer, N. (2023). Increasing the transparency of systematic reviews: Presenting a generalized registration form. Systematic Reviews, 12, Article 170. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02281-7