When a scoping review is appropriate
- To map concepts, definitions, evidence types or research activity in a broad field.
- To clarify how a topic has been studied and identify evidence gaps.
- To examine the range of methods or measures used.
- To determine whether a narrower systematic review is feasible.
When it is not the best choice
- When you need a precise estimate of intervention effect or diagnostic performance.
- When the real objective is to make a clinical recommendation from comparative effectiveness evidence.
- When “scoping review” is being used simply because the authors do not want to perform critical appraisal.
Approval and governance
Usually needs formal review / authorisation
- Institutional research-office approval if required under local research policy.
- Permission for non-public documents/data used as sources.
May follow a lighter or different route
- Reviews of published/public evidence commonly do not involve new human participants, but local institutional determination may still be required.
- Critical appraisal may be optional depending on the scoping-review objective and methodology; state the decision in the protocol.
Do not do this
- Do not claim the search is systematic if sources and selection are not reproducible.
- Do not turn a broad map into an unsupported effectiveness recommendation.
Mediclinic Middle East publicly states that research projects carried out at MCME are to receive approval from its internal Research and Ethics Committee and applicable local regulatory authorities before initiation. The exact route varies by project, facility and emirate. Dubai projects may involve DSREC depending on applicability. This hub must therefore route users to the Research Office and current local forms rather than declaring a project “ethics exempt.” Institution-specific forms and contacts will be inserted after verification.
Step-by-step workflow
Define the objective and rationale
State exactly what is being mapped: concepts, study designs, populations, interventions, outcome measures, geographical distribution, implementation factors or evidence gaps.
Frame the question
JBI commonly uses PCC: Population, Concept and Context. Define each component explicitly enough to guide eligibility without making the scope so broad that extraction becomes meaningless.
Write and register/publish a protocol where appropriate
Prespecify eligibility, search sources, screening, charting variables, appraisal approach (if any) and synthesis/presentation. Record amendments.
Design a broad search
Scoping searches are often intentionally sensitive. Include controlled vocabulary, keywords, databases and grey-literature sources relevant to the concept/context. Record strategies and dates.
Pilot eligibility
Test a sample of records with at least two reviewers and clarify ambiguous criteria.
Screen systematically
Conduct title/abstract and full-text selection with a reproducible process and record reasons for full-text exclusion.
Design the charting form
“Charting” is structured extraction. Include source characteristics and variables directly linked to the review objectives; pilot the form and iteratively refine only with transparent documentation.
Chart data consistently
Use duplicate/verified extraction for critical fields. Keep definitions for categories and coding decisions.
Decide whether critical appraisal is needed
Some scoping reviews omit formal risk-of-bias assessment because the objective is mapping rather than effect estimation. If appraisal is relevant to the review purpose, use a suitable tool and explain how results are used.
Map rather than overinterpret
Use tables, evidence maps, counts, concept groupings and descriptive summaries. Avoid treating the number of publications as the strength of evidence.
Identify gaps carefully
A “gap” may mean no studies, limited populations, poor methods or lack of certain outcomes; distinguish these. Do not assume a gap automatically means a new study is ethically or scientifically justified.
Report with PRISMA-ScR
Report rationale, protocol, eligibility, information sources, search, selection, charting, synthesis, source characteristics, results, limitations, funding and the PRISMA flow.
Final checklist
- Objective is mapping rather than disguised effectiveness estimation.
- PCC clearly defined.
- Protocol exists.
- Search broad and reproducible.
- Screening process documented.
- Charting form tied to objectives.
- Critical appraisal decision justified.
- PRISMA-ScR checklist completed.
How scoping synthesis should look
- Begin with a characteristics table showing source type, year, country/setting, population and the dimensions relevant to the objective.
- Use a pre-agreed coding framework for concepts and refine it transparently as charting progresses. Keep a change log when categories are merged or split.
- Present counts only as a map of the literature. A large number of studies does not mean an intervention works, and a small number does not prove the topic is unimportant.
- When mapping gaps, separate “no evidence found” from “evidence exists but is methodologically weak” and from “evidence exists but not in the target population/context.”
- If stakeholder consultation or co-creation is included, describe who participated, how they were recruited, what they contributed and whether that component required a separate ethics/governance route.