How to conduct a scoping review means following a structured method to map the breadth of evidence on a broad topic: define the objective and a PCC question (Population, Concept, Context), write a protocol, run a comprehensive search, screen sources in duplicate against eligibility criteria, chart the data, and summarise what exists rather than appraising or pooling it. A scoping review answers “what is out there?” instead of “does it work?”.
When a scoping review is the right choice
A scoping review fits a question that is too broad or too emerging for a focused effectiveness review. It is the method of choice when you want to identify the types of evidence in a field, clarify key concepts, examine how research has been conducted, or surface gaps that a future systematic review could target. Because the goal is coverage rather than a pooled estimate, a scoping review usually does not include a formal risk of bias assessment or a meta-analysis. If your question is narrow and effectiveness-focused, a systematic review is the better fit.
The stages of a scoping review
1. Define the objective and the question
Scoping reviews use broader questions than effectiveness reviews. The JBI methodology recommends the PCC framework to structure the objective, and the inclusion criteria flow directly from those three elements. A clear objective keeps the review from ballooning into an unmanageable scan of an entire discipline.
2. Write and register a protocol
Just like its systematic cousin, a scoping review is planned before any source is seen. The protocol names the databases, the eligibility rules, and the charting fields. Scoping protocols are not eligible for PROSPERO, so many teams deposit them on the Open Science Framework instead to timestamp the methods publicly.
3. Build a broad, documented search
Because the aim is comprehensive coverage, the search strategy spans several databases and is usually supplemented with grey literature and citation chasing. The search combines subject headings and free-text terms with Boolean operators, and every line is reported so the search can be rerun.
4. Screen sources in duplicate
After de-duplication, two reviewers independently screen titles and abstracts, then full texts, against the eligibility criteria. Working in duplicate reduces selection error, and disagreements are resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Counts at every stage feed the flow diagram.
5. Chart the data
Instead of extracting outcome effects, a scoping review charts descriptive information using a piloted charting form: author, year, country, population, concept, study design, and key findings. Charting is iterative, and the form is refined as the team learns what the evidence base actually contains.
6. Collate, summarise, and report
Results are presented descriptively, often as tables, charts, or concept maps, with a narrative summary of what the evidence shows and where the gaps lie. The finished review is reported against PRISMA-ScR, the scoping-review extension of the PRISMA 2020 guideline, and includes the search, the flow diagram, and the charted evidence.
How a scoping review differs from a systematic review
The two methods share the same backbone, a protocol, a documented search, and duplicate screening, but they part ways at the goal. A scoping review describes the extent and nature of evidence; a systematic review tests a specific effect and rates the certainty of evidence with GRADE. Scoping reviews typically skip critical appraisal and pooling, which is why they are faster to map a field but cannot tell you whether an intervention works. For a side-by-side of the two designs, see choosing between the two review types by intent, and for the wider family, our overview of the different types of literature reviews.
A worked example: when mapping beats testing
Suppose a team wants to understand how telehealth has been used to support medication adherence in older adults. The literature is sprawling: trials, cohort studies, qualitative interviews, service evaluations, and policy papers, spread across nursing, pharmacy, and informatics journals. A focused effectiveness review would force a single comparator and outcome onto a body of work that was never designed to answer one question. A scoping review instead charts which populations, which delivery models, and which outcome measures have been studied, then names the gaps a future trial could fill.
The PCC framing here is wide on purpose: the population is older adults on long-term medication, the concept is any telehealth intervention supporting adherence, and the context is community or home settings across any country. From that single objective the team derives its eligibility criteria and its charting fields. The deliverable is a descriptive map, not an effect size, and that is precisely what the question called for.
Charting in practice, not extraction
The verb matters. A systematic review extracts numerical outcomes so they can be pooled; a scoping review charts descriptive attributes so they can be tabulated. Treat the charting form as a living instrument: pilot it on a handful of sources, then refine the fields once you see what the evidence base actually reports. A typical charting form captures the following, and each column should map back to an element of the objective:
- Bibliographic details: author, year, country of origin, and journal discipline, which together reveal where and when the field has been active.
- Population and concept descriptors: who was studied and which variant of the concept the source addressed, so clusters and gaps become visible.
- Study or source design: trial, cohort, qualitative, guidance, or grey-literature report, since a scoping review deliberately admits more source types than an effectiveness review.
- Aim and key findings in the authors’ own framing, recorded descriptively rather than reinterpreted as an effect.
Because charting is iterative, log any change to the form as a dated amendment to the protocol so the final report can show the field evolved transparently rather than being quietly rewritten.
Optional appraisal and consultation
Two refinements separate a competent scoping review from a routine one. First, although the JBI methodology does not require a risk of bias assessment, it permits one where it serves the objective, for instance to comment on how robust the existing evidence is before recommending a full review. Use it sparingly and never to rank sources, because a scoping review does not weigh evidence the way a GRADE certainty rating does. Second, the framework includes an optional consultation stage, where clinicians, patients, or policymakers review the emerging map and flag missing sources or misframed concepts, which strengthens the relevance of the final gaps you report.
Common mistakes that weaken a scoping review
Three errors recur. The first is a question with no boundaries: without a disciplined PCC objective the search returns tens of thousands of records and the review stalls, so the breadth must be deliberate, not accidental. The second is importing systematic review machinery wholesale, pooling results or building a forest plot, which contradicts the descriptive aim and confuses readers about what the review claims. The third is treating charting as an afterthought, writing prose summaries with no structured table, which throws away the very mapping that makes the design useful. Reporting against PRISMA-ScR guards against all three because the checklist forces an explicit objective, a documented search, and a charted presentation of results.