PRISMA-compliant Scoping Review — Transparent Evidence Mapping with PRISMA-ScR
PRISMA for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Compliant Scoping Review · Also known as: PRISMA-ScR scoping review, scoping review with PRISMA-ScR, PRISMA scoping review, transparent scoping review
A PRISMA-compliant scoping review is a scoping review conducted and reported according to the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) extension, a 20-item checklist plus explanation published by Tricco et al. in 2018. Scoping reviews map the breadth and volume of evidence on a topic without synthesizing effect sizes; the PRISMA-ScR overlay adds transparency, reproducibility, and reporting completeness standards analogous to those PRISMA provides for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
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 PRISMA-compliant scoping review when you need to map the extent, range, and nature of evidence on a broad topic rather than answer a precise effectiveness question — and when you want or are required to meet journal or funder transparency standards. It is the appropriate choice when the literature is heterogeneous, when a systematic review is premature, or when the goal is to identify gaps and future research priorities. It is not appropriate when you need a pooled effect size (use meta-analysis), when the question is narrow enough for a systematic review, or when the team lacks capacity to conduct a rigorous dual-reviewer search-and-screen process. Do not apply PRISMA-ScR labelling to a narrative literature review that has not followed a systematic search and screening protocol.
Strengths & limitations
- PRISMA-ScR checklist imposes transparent, reproducible reporting that increases credibility with journals and funders.
- Maps the breadth of a field without requiring quantitative homogeneity, making it feasible where meta-analysis is not.
- Pre-registration and protocol documentation reduce post-hoc scope creep and outcome-reporting bias.
- Flow diagram requirement makes inclusion/exclusion decisions visible and auditable.
- Widely accepted across disciplines — health sciences, social science, education, policy research.
- Does not produce pooled effect estimates; cannot answer 'does intervention X work?' questions.
- Dual-reviewer screening and charting is resource-intensive and time-consuming.
- Quality assessment of included studies is not required by the scoping review framework, limiting conclusions about evidence strength.
- Breadth of scope means synthesis is often descriptive rather than analytic, which may satisfy neither quantitative nor deep qualitative standards.
Frequently asked
What is the difference between a scoping review and a PRISMA-compliant scoping review?
A scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley (2005) can be conducted with varying levels of reporting detail. A PRISMA-compliant scoping review additionally follows the PRISMA-ScR 2018 checklist, which specifies how each methodological decision — search strategy, screening, charting, synthesis — must be reported. PRISMA-ScR compliance is a reporting standard, not a different method; the underlying process is the same, but the documentation requirements are more stringent.
Should I quality-appraise included studies in a scoping review?
Quality appraisal is not a required component of a scoping review, unlike a systematic review. The purpose of a scoping review is to map the landscape, not to evaluate evidence quality for clinical recommendations. However, PRISMA-ScR item 15 requires you to describe whether any quality assessment was performed and, if so, how. If you choose to appraise quality, report it; if not, state that explicitly.
Is pre-registration mandatory for PRISMA-ScR compliance?
Mandatory pre-registration is not enforced, but PRISMA-ScR checklist item 2 requires you to state whether a protocol exists and where it is registered. If you did not pre-register, you must say so. Journals increasingly expect or require pre-registration; checking target journal requirements before starting is strongly advisable.
Can a single reviewer conduct a PRISMA-ScR compliant scoping review?
Single-reviewer screening is technically possible but weakens the review's credibility. PRISMA-ScR checklist item 9 asks you to describe the selection process; if only one reviewer screened, this must be disclosed and is generally considered a limitation. Most methodological guidance recommends at least two independent reviewers for title-abstract and full-text screening, with disagreements resolved by discussion.
What databases should I search for a PRISMA-ScR compliant scoping review?
There is no fixed list, but coverage should be justified. For health and social science topics, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science are commonly used. Grey literature (institutional reports, theses, conference proceedings) should also be searched and the sources documented. PRISMA-ScR item 8 requires you to present the full search strategies for at least one database and list all sources searched.
Sources
- Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., ... & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. DOI: 10.7326/M18-0850 ↗
- 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 ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). PRISMA for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Compliant Scoping Review. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/scientometrics/prisma-compliant-scoping-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.
- Mapping ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Narrative ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- PRISMA-based reviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Scoping ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Systematic Literature ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Umbrella ReviewEvidence Synthesis↔ compare