Scoping Review Methodology
Scoping Review (Arksey & O'Malley Framework, JBI Extension) · Also known as: Scoping Review, Scoping Study, Scope of the Field
A scoping review is a structured, transparent literature mapping method that identifies and synthesizes evidence across a defined topic without formally assessing study quality or generating pooled effect estimates. Developed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and PRISMA-ScR (2018), scoping reviews answer 'what evidence exists and in what forms' rather than 'what does the evidence conclude'—making them ideal for charting emerging fields, knowledge gaps, and the scope of a literature base before conducting a systematic review or as a standalone rapid knowledge synthesis.
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 scoping review when (1) you want to chart the breadth and nature of evidence on a topic (e.g., What behavioral interventions exist for smoking cessation?), (2) you are preparing to conduct a systematic review and need to scope feasibility and heterogeneity first, (3) the topic is emerging or very broad and a systematic review's narrow focus would be inappropriate, (4) stakeholders (clinicians, policymakers, researchers) need a rapid, structured knowledge synthesis for planning (e.g., identifying key research questions for future funding), or (5) you aim to identify how a concept is characterized, used, or measured across disciplines.
Strengths & limitations
- Provides a transparent, reproducible map of evidence without the time and resource burden of full quality appraisal required by systematic reviews.
- Accommodates heterogeneous study designs, populations, and outcomes, making it ideal for emerging or interdisciplinary fields.
- Rapidly identifies gaps, opportunities, and key themes in a literature, informing future research priorities and policy agendas.
- Includes grey literature and diverse evidence types, reducing publication bias and capturing policy-relevant knowledge.
- Flexible and iterative: research questions and scope can be refined during screening if the landscape proves broader or narrower than anticipated.
- Cannot answer causal questions or produce summary effect estimates; therefore, unsuitable for clinical decision-making requiring synthesized efficacy data.
- Quality variation across included studies is not formally assessed, so readers cannot distinguish rigorous from weak evidence.
- Synthesis is often narrative rather than quantitative, increasing risk of bias in how evidence is presented (though explicit charting frameworks minimize this).
- Rapid timeline may compromise some rigor; if expedited, screening by single reviewers or reduced search comprehensiveness may miss relevant studies.
Frequently asked
How do scoping reviews differ from systematic reviews?
Systematic reviews answer a narrow, well-defined causal or comparative question (e.g., 'Does cognitive behavioral therapy reduce anxiety symptoms?') by appraising study quality and synthesizing results, often with meta-analysis. Scoping reviews map the breadth of evidence on a broader topic (e.g., 'What psychological interventions exist for anxiety?') without quality appraisal. Scoping reviews identify what evidence exists, types, and gaps; systematic reviews synthesize evidence quality and effects.
Should I include grey literature in a scoping review?
Yes. Scoping reviews explicitly include grey literature (reports, theses, conference abstracts, policy documents) to capture the full evidence landscape and reduce publication bias. This is one key distinction from systematic reviews, which typically restrict to peer-reviewed journals. However, document and justify any limits (e.g., only reports from government health agencies, not internal unpublished reports).
Do I need to appraise study quality in a scoping review?
No. Unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews do not formally appraise study quality or risk of bias using standardized tools. However, you may note study design and design variation (e.g., 'Most evidence is observational; only 3 RCTs were found') to help readers understand the evidence base. If quality assessment is essential to your question, consider a systematic review instead.
How do I screen efficiently if the scope is very broad?
Use a staged approach: (1) screen titles and abstracts with a broad, inclusive criterion (e.g., 'Any study of X in populations Y'); (2) at full-text screening, apply specific inclusion criteria. Pilot your screening form with a subset of studies and refine criteria if needed. Consider using screening aids (e.g., Covidence, DistillerSR) to organize workflow. Document why borderline studies were included or excluded. Screening by single reviewer is defensible in scoping reviews if time-constrained, though dual review increases rigor.
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 ↗
- Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. DOI: 10.46658/jbirm-20-01 ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 4). Scoping Review (Arksey & O'Malley Framework, JBI Extension). ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/evidence-synthesis/scoping-review-methodology
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.
- Narrative ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Rapid Review MethodologyEvidence Synthesis↔ compare