Scoping Review — Scoping Review of the Literature
Scoping Review of the Literature · Also known as: scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map
A scoping review is a systematic evidence-synthesis method that maps the breadth and nature of research on a topic — identifying key concepts, evidence types, and gaps — without necessarily appraising study quality or pooling effect sizes. Developed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and refined by Levac and colleagues (2010), it is particularly valuable for emerging or heterogeneous fields where a full systematic review would be premature or infeasible.
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.
+16 more
When to use it
Use a scoping review when your goal is to map the extent, range, and nature of evidence on a topic rather than to answer a specific effectiveness question. It is the appropriate choice when the field is new or heterogeneous, when study designs and populations vary too widely to pool, when you need to clarify key concepts before commissioning a systematic review, or when policy or practice needs a rapid evidence map. Do not use a scoping review when a well-defined effectiveness question exists and the evidence base is sufficiently homogeneous for meta-analysis — a systematic review with quality appraisal is more appropriate in that case. Equally, if only three to five papers exist on the topic, a structured narrative review may suffice.
Strengths & limitations
- Maps broad evidence landscapes rapidly without being constrained to a narrow PICO question.
- Accommodates heterogeneous study designs, populations, and outcomes that would preclude a systematic review.
- Transparently documents the search and selection process, making findings reproducible and updatable.
- Identifies research gaps and conceptual ambiguities that inform future primary research or systematic review priorities.
- Can incorporate grey literature and non-peer-reviewed sources, reducing publication bias in the evidence map.
- Guides policy and practice stakeholders by clarifying what is known versus unknown across a field.
- Does not formally appraise study quality, so poor-quality evidence is included alongside high-quality evidence without distinction.
- Cannot produce pooled estimates of effect size or definitive effectiveness conclusions.
- Broad scope requires extensive searching and screening, making the process resource-intensive despite not requiring quality appraisal.
- Narrative synthesis is inherently interpretive and may underrepresent quantitative nuance in the literature.
- Without a registered protocol, scope creep during data extraction can compromise reproducibility.
Frequently asked
How is a scoping review different from a systematic review?
A systematic review answers a focused effectiveness question, formally appraises the quality of included studies, and often pools results in a meta-analysis. A scoping review answers a broader mapping question — what has been studied, how, and where — and typically does not assess study quality or produce pooled statistics. Scoping reviews are appropriate when the field is heterogeneous or when the goal is to identify gaps rather than confirm effectiveness.
Do I need to appraise study quality in a scoping review?
Quality appraisal is optional in scoping reviews. Arksey and O'Malley's original framework omits it, and the JBI guidance confirms that it is not required unless the review question specifically calls for it. If you find yourself needing to weight evidence by quality to answer your question, a systematic review is the more appropriate design.
Should I follow PRISMA for a scoping review?
Yes, but use the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), published by Tricco et al. in 2018 in JAMA. This 22-item checklist adapts the standard PRISMA statement to the specific characteristics of scoping reviews, including items on the rationale for using a scoping rather than systematic review design.
How many databases should I search?
There is no fixed rule, but three to five major discipline-relevant databases plus at least one grey literature source is a common minimum. The goal is coverage breadth, so the combination should be justified in the methods. A search information specialist or librarian is strongly recommended when designing the search strings.
Can a scoping review include qualitative studies?
Yes. Scoping reviews explicitly accommodate multiple evidence types — qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies — as well as grey literature such as government reports and practice guidelines. This inclusivity is one of the key advantages of the design when the evidence landscape is heterogeneous.
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 ↗
- Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1), 69. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Scoping Review of the Literature. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/scientometrics/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.
- Bibliometric AnalysisScientometrics↔ compare
- Integrative ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Mapping ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Narrative ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Systematic Literature ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Umbrella ReviewEvidence Synthesis↔ compare