Systematic Mapping Review
Systematic Mapping Review (Scoping Review) · Also known as: scoping review, systematic mapping, literature mapping, evidence mapping
A systematic mapping review (also called a 'scoping review') is a literature review methodology that aims to comprehensively identify and categorize the published evidence on a topic without necessarily assessing the quality of individual studies or synthesizing findings quantitatively. Developed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and formalized by the Joanna Briggs Institute, systematic mapping reviews chart the landscape of evidence: what has been studied, what are the research gaps, and how is evidence distributed across study types, populations, and outcomes. Unlike systematic reviews that answer specific research questions with rigorous study selection and synthesis, mapping reviews provide a broad overview of the research terrain, making them ideal for defining scope, identifying knowledge gaps, and guiding future research priorities.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
When to use it
Use a systematic mapping review when you need a broad understanding of the research landscape on a topic, when evidence is diverse (multiple study types, populations, outcomes), when the topic is new or rapidly evolving (traditional systematic reviews may be outdated), when you want to identify research gaps and priorities, or when you need to scope a larger systematic review (what specific question should we target?). Mapping reviews are also appropriate for topics with mixed research traditions (qualitative and quantitative, theory and applied). Use systematic reviews when you have a specific research question (Does X work for Y?) and want to synthesize evidence to answer it. Use scoping reviews when your question is broader (What evidence exists on X?).
Strengths & limitations
- Comprehensive landscape view: identifies all types of evidence, not just those meeting narrow inclusion criteria.
- Flexible: accommodates diverse study designs and populations; does not require homogeneity of outcomes.
- Gap identification: explicitly maps where evidence is sparse, guiding future research priorities.
- Quicker than systematic reviews: less rigorous study selection and no meta-analysis reduce time and resources.
- Temporal snapshot: captures the current state of evidence at a particular point in time, useful for tracking field evolution.
- No quality assessment: unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews do not formally appraise study quality; low-quality studies appear alongside high-quality studies.
- No synthesis of effects: scoping reviews describe what evidence exists but do not answer 'Does it work?' or 'What is the magnitude of effect?'
- Breadth over depth: focusing on landscape overview means less detailed exploration of findings; nuance may be lost.
- Potential bias in categorization: grouping studies into themes is somewhat subjective; different reviewers may categorize differently.
- Gray literature challenges: including gray literature (unpublished reports) can be labor-intensive and increases heterogeneity.
Frequently asked
What is the difference between a scoping review and a systematic review?
Scoping reviews answer 'What evidence exists on topic X?' and map the landscape. Systematic reviews answer 'Does intervention Y work for condition Z?' and synthesize evidence to answer specific questions. Scoping reviews include diverse study types and populations; systematic reviews are selective, including only studies meeting narrow criteria. Scoping reviews do not assess quality or synthesize effects; systematic reviews do. Scoping reviews are faster and less resource-intensive. For broad landscape understanding, use scoping reviews; for specific intervention questions, use systematic reviews.
Should I include gray literature (unpublished reports, dissertations, conference abstracts)?
PRISMA-ScR recommends identifying gray literature but does not mandate inclusion. If including: (1) specify which gray literature types (dissertations, reports, conference proceedings), (2) use explicit strategies to find them (searching databases like ProQuest, OpenGrey, contacting organizations), (3) report the proportion of gray literature identified and included. Gray literature may reduce bias (overcome publication bias) or increase it (gray literature often lower quality). Decision should align with your scope and available resources. Always report which literature types were sought and included.
How do I handle conflicting definitions or terminology across studies?
Document key terms and how different studies use them. For example, 'depression' is defined differently in psychiatric vs. epidemiologic studies. Create a table mapping term definitions; note these variations in your narrative. This is valuable learning from scoping reviews: identifying terminology inconsistency is part of mapping the evidence landscape. Use these insights to recommend standardized terminology for future research.
Can I perform meta-analysis on scoping review data?
No. Meta-analysis requires homogeneous studies (similar designs, populations, outcomes, quality) and formal quality assessment—not compatible with scoping review scope and methods. If you want to synthesize quantitatively, conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis on a narrower question. A scoping review can inform which studies to include in a later systematic review.
Sources
- Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI: 10.1080/1364557032000119616 ↗
- Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., et al. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. DOI: 10.7326/M18-0850 ↗
- Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2009). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell. ISBN: 978-0631215936
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 4). Systematic Mapping Review (Scoping Review). ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/bibliometrics/systematic-mapping-review
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- Bibliographic CouplingBibliometrics↔ compare
- Co-Citation AnalysisBibliometrics↔ compare
- Research Front IdentificationBibliometrics↔ compare
- Science MappingBibliometrics↔ compare