Scoping Reviews: A Complete Guide to PRISMA-ScR in 2026

Scoping reviews have become one of the fastest-growing forms of evidence synthesis. They map the breadth of literature on a topic rather than answering a narrow clinical question — making them ideal for emerging fields, complex interventions, and research areas where the evidence base is still taking shape.

This guide covers when to choose a scoping review, how to structure one using the PCC framework, and how to report it using PRISMA-ScR so your manuscript survives desk review.

What Is a Scoping Review?

A scoping review is a type of knowledge synthesis that systematically identifies and maps the available evidence on a broad topic. Unlike a traditional systematic review, which answers a specific clinical question and often includes meta-analysis, a scoping review asks: what is known about this area?

Scoping reviews are designed to:

Map the extent of evidence on a topic, including the volume, nature, and characteristics of research
Identify knowledge gaps where primary research is needed
Clarify key concepts and definitions used across the literature
Inform future systematic reviews by establishing whether a full review is feasible

The methodology was originally described by Arksey and O'Malley in 2005, then refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and formalized through the PRISMA-ScR reporting guideline in 2018.

Scoping Review vs Systematic Review

The choice between a scoping review and a systematic review depends on your research question and what you want to achieve.

Aspect	Scoping Review	Systematic Review
Question type	Broad, exploratory	Focused, specific
Framework	PCC (Population, Concept, Context)	PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design)
Quality assessment	Optional	Required
Data synthesis	Descriptive mapping (charting)	Quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative
PRISMA variant	PRISMA-ScR	PRISMA 2020
Typical output	Evidence map, gap analysis	Pooled effect estimate, certainty of evidence

Choose a scoping review when:

The research area is broad or has not been comprehensively reviewed
You want to identify the types and sources of evidence available
You want to clarify working definitions or conceptual boundaries
You are conducting preliminary work before a full systematic review
The research question does not lend itself to meta-analysis

Choose a systematic review when:

You have a focused clinical question with measurable outcomes
You want to produce a pooled effect estimate
You need to assess the certainty of evidence (GRADE)
Clinical guidelines or policy decisions depend on the answer

The PCC Framework

Scoping reviews use the PCC framework instead of PICOS to define the research question:

Population: Who is the population of interest? This may be broader than in a systematic review.
Concept: What is the core concept being examined? This replaces "Intervention" and "Comparison" because scoping reviews often explore concepts rather than interventions.
Context: What is the setting, discipline, or geographic context? This helps define the boundaries of the review.

Example: In a scoping review of telemedicine in postoperative care:

P: Adult surgical patients
C: Telemedicine-based follow-up approaches
C: Outpatient postoperative care settings in high-income countries

The PCC framework keeps scoping reviews structured while allowing the breadth that distinguishes them from systematic reviews.

The PRISMA-ScR Checklist

PRISMA-ScR (PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews) contains 20 essential items and 2 optional items that guide transparent reporting. Incomplete PRISMA-ScR compliance is one of the most common reasons for desk rejection of scoping review manuscripts.

Key sections include:

Title and Abstract

The title must explicitly identify the study as a scoping review
The abstract should follow a structured format with objectives, methods, results, and conclusions

Methods

Describe the protocol and whether it was registered (e.g., on OSF or JBI)
State the eligibility criteria using the PCC framework
Document all information sources and the complete search strategy
Describe the selection process, including the number of reviewers

Data Charting

Scoping reviews use "data charting" rather than "data extraction." The data charting form captures descriptive information about each included source:

Author, year, country
Study design or source type
Population characteristics
Concept-related findings
Context details
Key results relevant to the review question

Data charting may be iterative — the form can be updated as reviewers become more familiar with the included literature.

Results

Present a flow diagram showing identification, screening, and inclusion
Summarize the characteristics of included sources
Present findings in relation to the review objectives, often using tables, charts, or evidence maps

Discussion

Summarize the main findings in the context of the review objective
Discuss limitations of both the evidence and the review process
Describe implications for research, practice, or policy

Common Mistakes That Lead to Desk Rejection

Failing to identify as a scoping review in the title — journals reject manuscripts that do not clearly state the review type
Using PICOS instead of PCC — scoping reviews have their own framework
Conducting quality assessment and calling it a scoping review — if you assess quality and pool results, you are conducting a systematic review
Incomplete search documentation — the full search strategy for at least one database must be reproducible
Missing flow diagram — the PRISMA-ScR flow diagram is required, not optional

Conducting a Scoping Review with mapped

mapped supports scoping reviews as a dedicated study type. When you select "scoping" during project creation:

The workflow adapts automatically: risk of bias, meta-analysis, and GRADE steps are excluded (they are not part of scoping review methodology)
Data extraction is relabeled as "data charting" to match PRISMA-ScR terminology
The PCC framework replaces PICOS in the research criteria step
The PRISMA-ScR flow diagram is generated instead of PRISMA 2020
The manuscript template follows scoping review reporting conventions

This means the platform enforces correct methodology by design — you cannot accidentally apply systematic review methods to a scoping review.