What is a Scoping Review?
What is a Scoping Review?
A scoping review is a literature review which maps the extent, range, or nature of research on a topic or question. It uses explicit, reproducible methods to identify all studies meeting pre-specified eligibility criteria to determine whether a systematic review is necessary, summarize available evidence, identify gaps in research, and plan for future research.¹ ²
You should conduct a scoping review if you want:
-
To examine the extent, range and nature of research activity
-
To determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review
-
To summarize and disseminate research findings
-
To identify research gaps in the existing literature³
There are many types of literature reviews.
Before beginning a scoping review, consider whether it is the best type of review for your question, goals, and resources. The table below compares a few different types of reviews to help you decide which is best for you.
| Systematic Review | Scoping Review | Systematized Review |
|---|---|---|
| Conducted for Publication | Conducted for Publication | Conducted for Assignment, Thesis, or (Possibly) Publication |
| Protocol Required | Protocol Required | No Protocol Required |
| Focused Research Question | Broad Research Question | Either |
| Focused Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria | Broad Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria | Either |
| Requires Large Team | Requires Small Team | Usually 1-2 People |
For more information, see Covidence Academy's blog post comparing Systematic and Scoping Reviews.
Additionally, the following article provides information for authors about choosing between a systematic and scoping review:
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
- Systematic Review GuideFor more information about systematic reviews, refer to the UNC HSL Systematic Review Guide.
A Simplified Process Map
- UNC HSL's Scoping Review Process MapA PDF file of the HSL's Scoping Review Process Map.
- Text-Only: UNC HSL's Scoping Review Process MapA text-only PDF file of the HSL's Scoping Review Process Map
Scoping Reviews: a Simplified, Step-by-Step Process © 2021 by Emily P. Jones & Michelle Cawley is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0.
How can the library help?
The average systematic review takes 1,168 hours to complete.¹
A librarian can help you speed up the process.
The methodology for scoping reviews is similar to systematic reviews. While there are some differences, they still require significant time and resources to complete. Scoping reviews follow established guidelines and best practices to produce high-quality research. Librarian involvement in scoping reviews is based on two levels. In Tier 1, the librarian will collaborate with researchers in a consultative manner. In Tier 2, the librarian will be an active member of your research team and co-author on your review. Roles and expectations of librarians vary based on the level of involvement desired. Examples of these differences are outlined in the table below.
| Tasks | Tier 1: Consultative | Tier 2: Research Partner / Co-author |
|---|---|---|
| Topic Development | ||
| Guidance on process and steps | Yes | Yes |
| Background searching for past and upcoming reviews | Yes | Yes |
| Development of Eligibility Criteria | ||
| Development and/or refinement of review topic | Yes | Yes |
| Assistance with refinement of PICO (population, intervention(s), comparator(s), and key questions | Yes | Yes |
| Guidance on study types to include | Yes | Yes |
| Protocol Creation and Registration | ||
| Guidance on protocol registration | Yes | Yes |
| Searching | ||
| Identification of databases for searches | Yes | Yes |
| Instruction in search techniques and methods | Yes | Yes |
| Training in citation management software use for managing and sharing results | Yes | Yes |
| Development and execution of searches | No | Yes |
| Downloading search results to citation management software and removing duplicates | No | Yes |
| Documentation of search strategies | No | Yes |
| Management of search results | No | Yes |
| Study Selection and Extraction | ||
| Guidance on methods | Yes | Yes |
| Guidance on data extraction, and management techniques and software | Yes | Yes |
| Writing and Publishing | ||
| Suggestions of journals to target for publication | Yes | Yes |
| Drafting of literature search description in "Methods" section | No | Yes |
| Creation of PRISMA diagram | No | Yes |
| Drafting of literature search appendix | No | Yes |
| Review other manuscript sections and final draft | No | Yes |
| Librarian contributions warrant co-authorship | No | Yes |
How cam AI and machine learning help?
Cochrane Webinar Series: Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods in evidence synthesis
Advancements in AI, automation, and language processing are increasingly influencing the creation and use of evidence syntheses. AI language models (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude) and automation tools (e.g., ASReview, Laser AI, DistillerSR) offer new possibilities for tasks like search strategy development, screening and data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and writing evidence syntheses. These tools can significantly speed up the process of producing or updating evidence syntheses, benefiting researchers and users alike. However, understanding the strengths and limitations of these technologies is critical to maintaining quality.
In this webinar series, Cochrane explores the role of AI in evidence synthesis, examines how it can complement traditional methods and provides a platform for experts to discuss the opportunities, challenges, and risks involved. This series targets those with foundational knowledge of systematic reviews who want to stay updated on AI developments in evidence synthesis.
This webinar series was developed in collaboration with Waldemar Siemens and Joerg Meerpohl, who are affiliated with Cochrane Germany and the Institute of Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Germany. The series is based on the Methods Forum 2024 by Cochrane Germany (cochrane.de/methodenforum-2024), organised by Waldemar Siemens and Joerg Meerpohl.
Webinar recordings and slides are available on the Cochrane Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods in evidence synthesis website.
- (How) can AI-based automation tools assist with systematic searching? [January 2025] Presented by Dr. Maria-Inti Metzendorf & Irma Klerings
View the recording. - Could large language models and/or AI-based automation tools assist the screening process? [February 2025] Presented by Dr. Siw Waffenschmidt
View the recording. - Opportunities and challenges for data extraction with a large language model [March 2025] Presented by Prof. Gerald Gartlehner
View the recording. - (How well) can large language models and AI-based automation tools assist in Risk of Bias Assessment? [April 2025] Presented by Dr. Angelika Eisele-Metzger
View the recording. - How effectively do large language models and AI-based automation tools assist in writing and summarizing evidence syntheses? [Upcoming: May 7 2025] Presented by Dr. Riaz Qureshi
Sign Up. View the recording. - Recommendations and guidance on responsible AI in evidence synthesis [Upcoming: June 3 2025]
Presented by Ella Flemyng, Dr. Anna Noel-Storr, Prof. James Thomas, Prof. Gerald Gartlehner, Prof. Joerg Meerpohl, & Biljana Macura.
Sign Up. View the recording.
How you can partner with the HSL
UNC Health Sciences Librarians partner on systematic reviews and can apply three different types of predictive AI based on the project's needs. You can find more information on each type on our How Does Predictive AI/ML Work? page.
Library guide
HSL Staff-authored Reviews
The following are systematic and scoping reviews co-authored by HSL librarians.
Only the most recent 15 results are listed. Click the website link at the bottom of the list to see all reviews co-authored by HSL librarians in PubMed
Additional Resources
- Scoping studies: Towards a methodological frameworkArksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
- PRISMA Scoping Review GuidelinesThe PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was published in 2018. The checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items to include when completing a scoping review. Scoping reviews serve to synthesize evidence and assess the scope of literature on a topic. Among other objectives, scoping reviews help determine whether a systematic review of the literature is warranted.
- Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual, Chapter 10: Scoping ReviewsPeters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil, H. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, , 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual..global. https://doi.org/10.46658/MES-20-12
- Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and processPeterson, F., Pearce, A., Ferguson, A., & Langford, A. (2017). Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 29(1), 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/2327-6924.12380
- A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviewsTricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kastner, M., Levac, D., Ng, C., Sharpe, J. P., Wilson, K., Kenny, M., Warren, R., Wilson, C., Stelfox, H. T., & Straus, S. E. (2016). A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4
- Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviewsPeters, M. D. , Godfrey, C. M. , Khalil, H. , McInerney, P. , Parker, D. & Soares, C. B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13 (3), 141-146. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050.