Skip to content
Free planNo credit card requiredStart writing
AI for Research home
AI for Research home
Dashboard
Sign inGet started

Scoping review vs systematic review: which one fits your question?

Updated 10 min read

Short answer:

Scoping review vs systematic review comes down to your question. Choose a systematic review to answer a focused question, such as whether an intervention works, with appraised and combined evidence. Choose a scoping review to map a broad field: what has been studied, how, with which concepts, and where the gaps are. Both need a protocol, a documented search and transparent reporting.

This guide is for students and researchers choosing a review type for a thesis, a grant or a paper. It is part of our series on what a systematic review is.

What is a scoping review?

A scoping review is a type of knowledge synthesis that follows a systematic approach to map the evidence on a topic and identify its main concepts, theories, sources and knowledge gaps [1]. That is close to the wording of the PRISMA-ScR reporting guideline. Unlike a systematic review, it does not set out to tell you whether something works or how big the effect is.

Munn and colleagues list six reasons to do a scoping review [2]:

  1. To identify the types of available evidence in a field.
  2. To clarify key concepts or definitions in the literature.
  3. To examine how research is conducted on a topic.
  4. To identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept.
  5. As a precursor to a systematic review.
  6. To identify and analyze knowledge gaps.

A systematic review is a review that uses explicit, systematic methods to collate and synthesize findings of studies that address a clearly formulated question [3]. Munn and colleagues put the deciding test plainly: if your question is about the feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness or effectiveness of a treatment or practice, a systematic review is likely the most valid approach [2].

Scoping review vs systematic review: what is the difference?

They differ in question, breadth, appraisal and synthesis. Use this table to decide.

Scoping reviewSystematic review
Question type"What is known about...?", "How has X been studied?""Does X work?", "What is the effect of X on Y?"
Question frameworkPCC: Population, Concept, ContextPICO for effects; SPIDER or PICo for qualitative
BreadthBroad; any study design, often grey literature and policy documents [4]Narrow; designs that can answer the question
Quality appraisalOptional; usually not done [1]Required (risk of bias for each study)
SynthesisCharting and descriptive summary: counts, tables, mapsMeta-analysis or structured narrative synthesis
OutputA map of the evidence and its gapsAn answer with a stated certainty
Reporting guidelinePRISMA-ScR: 20 essential items plus 2 optional [1]PRISMA 2020: 27 items [3]
Protocol registrationOSF, Figshare or a journal; not PROSPERO [5][6]PROSPERO for health-related reviews [6]
Informs practice directly?No; it informs research and future reviewsYes; it can inform guidelines and decisions

Decision rules

Answer these four questions in order. The first "yes" decides.

  1. Will someone use your conclusion to choose a treatment, policy or practice? Systematic review.
  2. Is your question about the size or direction of an effect? Systematic review.
  3. Do you need to know what evidence exists before you can ask a focused question? Scoping review, possibly followed by a systematic review.
  4. Is the main output a list of concepts, definitions, methods or gaps? Scoping review.

If none fit, your question may still be too vague. Rewrite it with PICO or PCC first; see how to write a research question.

Does a scoping review need quality assessment?

Usually not. In the PRISMA-ScR checklist, critical appraisal of individual sources (item 12) and its results (item 16) are the only two optional items, reported "if done" [1]. The JBI Manual also treats critical appraisal as optional for scoping reviews [5].

That has a consequence. Without appraisal, a scoping review cannot tell readers whether the evidence is strong, so it should not end with recommendations for practice. If your supervisor or funder wants to know whether an approach works, you need a systematic review.

Scoping review methodology: the steps

The steps mirror a systematic review, with charting in place of appraisal and pooling. They come from Arksey and O'Malley's framework [7], updated in the JBI guidance [4][5].

  1. Write the question with PCC. Example: Population: adults over 65; Concept: digital tools for medication adherence; Context: community settings.
  2. Write and register the protocol. Include objectives, eligibility criteria, sources, search strategy and a draft charting form. Use OSF or a protocol journal, since PROSPERO does not accept scoping reviews [6].
  3. Search widely. Several bibliographic databases plus grey literature, theses and policy documents. See systematic review search strategy.
  4. Select sources. Screen titles and abstracts, then full texts, against your criteria, ideally with two reviewers. Record agreement with Cohen's kappa.
  5. Chart the data. Extract the same fields from each source: author, year, country, design, population, concept details, outcomes measured. Pilot the form on five sources first.
  6. Collate, summarize and report. Count sources by year, country, design and concept; present tables or an evidence map; describe the gaps. Report with PRISMA-ScR and a flow diagram; see how to make a PRISMA flow diagram.

Arksey and O'Malley also describe an optional sixth stage: consulting stakeholders to check and add to the findings [7].

Two worked examples

Both are invented examples with numbers that add up.

Example 1: a scoping review

Question (PCC): What digital tools have been used to support medication adherence in adults over 65 living in the community, and how have they been evaluated?

The search finds 4,120 records; 1,370 duplicates are removed, leaving 2,750 to screen. 2,560 are excluded on title and abstract, so 190 full texts are assessed, and 128 are excluded at full text. 62 sources are included: 38 trials, 11 qualitative studies, 9 feasibility studies and 4 policy reports.

The result is a map: 27 sources test reminder apps, 19 smart pill dispensers, 16 text messaging. Adherence was measured with 9 different instruments. Only 4 sources included people with cognitive impairment. That last finding is the gap, and a reason for future work. No source is rated for quality, and the review makes no claim about which tool works best.

Example 2: a systematic review

Question (PICO): In adults over 65 with hypertension (P), do text message reminders (I), compared with usual care (C), improve medication adherence at 6 months (O)?

The search is narrower: randomized trials only. 1,480 records, 410 duplicates, 1,070 screened, 1,028 excluded, 42 full texts assessed, 33 excluded, 9 trials included. Each trial is rated with RoB 2. Seven report adherence on comparable scales and are pooled in a meta-analysis; see systematic review vs meta-analysis. The conclusion states the pooled effect and how certain it is.

Notice that Example 1's map could have led to Example 2: the 16 text-messaging studies suggested a focused question worth a systematic review. That is the "precursor" use Munn and colleagues describe [2].

How long does a scoping review take?

There is no reliable published average, so plan in months. Do not choose a scoping review to save time. The JBI Manual warns that a broad scoping review with many types of sources can take more time and resources than a narrow systematic review with tight eligibility criteria [5]. For comparison, systematic reviews registered in PROSPERO took a mean of 67.3 weeks from registration to publication [8].

Where does a rapid review fit?

A rapid review is a form of evidence synthesis that follows systematic review methods but simplifies or omits some steps to produce evidence faster. The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group recommends which shortcuts are acceptable, such as limiting databases and dates, or having one reviewer screen while a second checks a sample of exclusions [9]. Choose a rapid review when you have a systematic-review-type question and a deadline. It is not a faster scoping review: the question type still decides.

Common mistakes when choosing

  • Calling a narrative review a scoping review. Without a protocol, a documented search and PRISMA-ScR reporting, it is not a scoping review.
  • Asking an effectiveness question in a scoping review. "Does mindfulness reduce burnout?" needs appraisal and synthesis. A scoping review would only list the studies.
  • Making practice recommendations from a scoping review. Without appraisal, you cannot say the evidence is strong enough.
  • Using PRISMA 2020 for a scoping review. Use PRISMA-ScR; journals check.

How to run either review in AI for Research

The Systematic Review workspace has presets for both, plus rapid, mapping and four other review types. The preset sets the defaults; you and your co-reviewers make every decision, and the AI only suggests.

  • Protocol: pick PCC for a scoping review or PICO for a systematic review, enter eligibility criteria, and get an AI draft of the protocol in PROSPERO's sections (3 credits). For a scoping review, adapt that draft and register it on OSF.
  • Search: builders for PubMed, Europe PMC and OpenAlex with live counts, logged for your report (0 credits). Upload RIS, BibTeX, CSV or .nbib exports from databases you search through your library, such as Scopus or Web of Science. Duplicates are removed by DOI, PMID and title.
  • Screening: include, exclude with a reason, or maybe, at title and abstract then full text. AI suggestions cost 1 credit per 25 records. A co-reviewer or the AI can act as second reviewer; conflicts are listed with Cohen's kappa and percent agreement.
  • Charting or extraction: a table with 9 standard columns plus custom ones (add "concept", "setting", "instrument" for a scoping review). Risk-of-bias fields are there for a systematic review; leave them empty for a scoping review. AI fills cells from abstracts with quotes, 3 credits per 10 studies.
  • Report: a PRISMA 2020 flow diagram from live counts (0 credits), CSV and RIS export, and an AI methods draft (3 credits).

Limits: the flow diagram follows PRISMA 2020; check its box labels against PRISMA-ScR wording for a scoping review. AI charting reads abstracts only. Example 1 above, with AI screening suggestions on 2,750 records (110 credits) and charting of 62 sources (21 credits), uses about 137 credits with the protocol and methods drafts, within the Plus plan's 750 a month. The free plan covers one review of up to 50 records. See pricing.

FAQ

What is the main difference between a scoping review and a systematic review?

The question. A systematic review answers a focused question, such as whether an intervention works, and appraises the quality of each study before combining results. A scoping review maps a broad field: what evidence exists, how it was studied, which concepts are used and where the gaps are. It usually skips quality appraisal and reports a descriptive summary instead of pooled results.

Does a scoping review need quality assessment?

Usually not. In PRISMA-ScR, critical appraisal of included sources is one of only two optional items, and you report it only if you did it. JBI guidance also treats appraisal as optional for scoping reviews. If your readers will rely on the strength of the evidence, that is a sign you need a systematic review, where appraisal is required.

How long does a scoping review take?

There is no reliable published average, so plan in months, not weeks. A scoping review follows the same search, screening and charting steps as a systematic review, often across more varied sources. JBI notes that a broad scoping review can take more time and resources than a narrow systematic review, so do not choose a scoping review to save time.

Can a scoping review be registered on PROSPERO?

No. PROSPERO lists scoping reviews among the review types it does not accept. Register or publish the protocol elsewhere instead: the Open Science Framework, Figshare, or a journal that publishes protocols, such as JBI Evidence Synthesis. Write the protocol before you search, with your PCC question, eligibility criteria, sources and charting form.

Is a scoping review easier than a systematic review?

No. It answers a different question with the same rigor: a protocol, a documented search of several sources, screening against set criteria, ideally by two people, and transparent reporting with PRISMA-ScR. It can be larger, because broad questions find more records and more types of evidence. It is not a shortcut for a systematic review you lack time to finish.

Next steps

Sources

  1. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2018;169(7):467-473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
  2. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2018;18:143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
  3. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  4. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2020;18(10):2119-2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167
  5. Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z (eds). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, Chapter 10: Scoping reviews. JBI, 2024. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01
  6. PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews. Inclusion criteria. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/AboutPROSPERO/InclusionCriteria.php
  7. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005;8(1):19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
  8. Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e012545. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545
  9. Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2021;130:13-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007

More on systematic reviews