|Are you interested in contributing to HLWIKI International? contact
To browse other articles on a range of HSL topics, see the A-Z index.
- This entry is out of date, and will not be updated, September 2018
- scoping reviews, scoping studies, knowledge synthesis, mapping, scoping method, mapping of research, literature review, scoping exercise method, systematic scoping
- See also: rapid review, rapid approach, rapid synthesis, meta-method, meta-evaluation, rapid evidence assessment, expedited review, accelerated review and realist review
See also Expert searching | Hand-searching | Question scans | Rapid reviews | Realist reviews | Snowballing | Systematic review searching
"...scoping reviews [aim to] map key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available, and [are rapidly] undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, especially where an area is complex or has not been reviewed comprehensively before...scoping reviews are often conducted to examine previous research activity, disseminate findings, identify gaps in the research and/ or determine the value of conducting a full systematic review..." — Wilson et al, 2012
"...we drew on the methods laid out in a 2005 framework by Arksey and O’Malley who were among the first scholars to articulate a framework to clarify the usefulness of (and methods inherent in) a scoping study." — Daudt et al, 2013
Scoping reviews are exploratory projects that systematically map the literature on a topic, identifying key concepts, theories and sources of evidence. It is important to understand the differences between review types (see Grant et al, 2009 and Reynen et al, 2017). Scoping reviews aim to address broader, more complex, and exploratory research questions... [as opposed to] systematic reviews which are designed to answer precisely defined, narrow questions. Searching in the scoping review should be systematic. CIHR describes scoping reviews thus: "[they] entail the systematic selection, collection and summarization of existing knowledge in a broad thematic area." Scoping reviews are often conducted before full syntheses, and undertaken when feasibility of the research is considered to be a challenge, either because the relevant literature is thought to be vast and diverse (varying by methods, theoretical orientations and disciplines) and/or it is thought that little literature exists. In the scoping review, the same systematic, rigorous methodologies used by the systematic review are used to find studies and extract data. Analyses and syntheses are part of every scoping review but the depth and type of analysis are different.
Scoping reviews are commonly used to better understand phenomena and to evaluate where research on a topic has or has not been completed. Scoping reviews are often a first step in conducting a systematic review because they allow researchers to see where there are data points in the larger literature landscape. This is valuable for evaluating whether or not a systematic review is a feasible or viable option in some cases. Systematic reviews are commonly completed to show comparative effectiveness of some interventions and meta-analysis is usually done in these types of studies. Scoping reviews entail systematic selection, collection and summaries of existing knowledge to identify where there is sufficient evidence to conduct a full synthesis or where insufficient evidence exists and further primary research is necessary. link
- The scoping review has become increasingly popular as a form of knowledge synthesis. However, a lack of consensus on scoping review terminology, definition, methodology, and reporting limits the potential of this form of synthesis. In this article, we propose recommendations to further advance the field of scoping review methodology.
What is a scoping of a topic?
A scoping review (also scoping study) refers to a rapid gathering of literature in a given policy or clinical area where the aims are to accumulate as much evidence as possible and map the results. Scoping reviews are a type of literature review that aims to provide an overview of the type, extent and quantity of research available on a given topic. By ‘mapping’ existing research, a scoping review can identify potential research gaps and future research needs, and do so by using systematic and transparent methods. The term ‘scoping review’ does not seem to have a commonly-accepted definition but several researchers such as Arksey & O’Malley, 2005, Anderson et al, 2008 and Davis, 2009 have attempted definitions. In 2010, Rumrill et al said that "...scoping reviews are efficient ways of identifying themes and trends in high-volume areas of scientific inquiry." Generally, a scoping review is an iterative process whereby existing literature is identified, examined and conceptually mapped, and where gaps are identified. Think of a scoping review as a first step in doing a systematic review or large study.
Given the "scope" of a scoping review, their aim is to establish what research has been published on specific topics and disciplinary areas (including reviews of policies, practices and research). The literature search in a scoping review should be as extensive as possible, and include a range of relevant databases, hand searches and attempts to identify unpublished literature. Often, the underlying aim of a scoping review is to explore the literature as opposed to answering specific questions. The scoping review should also include locating organizations and individuals that are relevant to the domain and what those groups have published. In the social sciences, scoping studies are performed at an initial stage of doing research (ie. program, project, process, or grant). Scoping reviews are used in some research areas to justify further investigation, time and resources.
In 2010, Levac et al built on Arksey and O’Malley's scoping review methodology (see appendix) and proposed a list of six (6) stages for those undertaking a scoping study:
- Stage 1: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (identifying the research question)
- Stage 2: balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process
- Stage 3: using an iterative team approach to selecting studies
- Stage 4: extracting data
- Stage 5: incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results and considering implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research
- Stage 6: incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a knowledge translation component of scoping
Lastly, they propose other considerations for scoping methodologies in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research. In 2013, Daudt et al updated both the Arksey and Levac frameworks for scoping reviews.
Features of a good scoping review
According to Grant and Booth (2009), there are some characteristic features of scoping reviews that can be used to distinguish them from other types of reviews:
- Preliminary assessment of size and scope of available research literature
- Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research)
- Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints
- May include research in progress
- No formal quality assessment
- Typically tabular with some narrative commentary
- Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features
- Attempts to specify a viable review
See also Horizon scanning the AHRQ way
Scoping review example
Pre-systematic review searching
In evidence-based practice, scoping studies are undertaken as distinct research projects, and as precursors to other types of research. However, a scoping study may be requested as a search prior to the systematic review or preparatory to costing research projects. The interpretation, methodology and expectations of scoping reviews are variable and suggest that conceptually, scoping is not well-understood or defined. The distinction between scoping as an integral preliminary process in the development of a research proposal or a formative, methodologically rigorous activity in its own right has not been examined. Scoping studies in medicine are slowly evolving; their strength lies in their ability to summarize a body of evidence for quick but accurate synthesis. As with other approaches to evidence synthesis a standardized approach is always welcome. Full literature searching aimed at retrieving a maximum number of relevant studies or articles in a given discipline starts with a scope of a topic.
It should be said that the scoping process is iterative and helps to estimate the size of the biomedical literature in question and the costs of searching it thoroughly. Some health librarians have begun to offer their information retrieval skills for rapid evidence-assessments (REAs) because interdisciplinary topics increase the likelihood of time-consuming searching -- this may be important to know before a large-scale project can be undertaken. Arksey and O'Malley in 2005 outline a methodological framework that identifies different types of scoping studies, and how these compare to systematic reviews.
Importance of librarian in scoping reviews
- It is always a good idea to consult a methodologist and a librarian before undertaking a scoping review; a librarian can translate operational definitions of concepts/topics into robust search strategies
- A variety of approaches in gathering citations for scoping studies should be undertaken, and a librarian can help with databases, searching features in each (keywords, MESH terms, wildcard operators); interfaces and platform changes; selecting the most appropriate index, tool, database
- The librarian will recommend keyword and wildcard searches to maximize recall (or sensitivity); some authors (Sandieson, 2006) promote ‘pearl harvesting’, 'snowballing' and finding seminal articles in the area
- Ramer (2005) recommends a similar process for websites called ‘site-ation’; a scoping of the literature means locating other systematic reviews and clinical trials on specific topics. Over time, results from searches provide focus (or refocus) to aid in direction of a research proposal. Scans of the literature may show a review exists in Cochrane or elsewhere and that there is no need to replicate what is available.
- Scoping searches begin in the major biomedical databases such as the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Google scholar and PsycINFO which are themselves refining processes; identifying major sources to be searched thoroughly in the second phase of the project is a part of that refinement process.
- Identifying the most important sources of information to search may shift based on the research. Searching protocols may be recommend but need tracking, documentation and taking screenshots (in Google scholar for example).
- Searching in the top biomedical databases is not always sufficient as other resources, non-English materials and grey literature hidden in the deep web, may prove important.
- Anderson S, Allen P, Peckham S. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organization and delivery of health services. Health Res Policy Syst. 2008;6(7):1–12.
- Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Social Research Methodology. 2005;8(1):19-32.
- Armstrong R, Hall BJ, Doyle J, Waters E. Cochrane Update. 'Scoping the scope' of a cochrane review. J Public Health (Oxf). 2011 Mar;33(1):147-50.
- Booth A. How much searching is enough? Comprehensive versus optimal retrieval for technology assessments. Int J Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2010;26.
- Brien SE, Lorenzetti DL, Lewis S, Kennedy J, Ghali WA. Overview of a formal scoping review on health system report cards. Implementation Science. 2010;5:2.
- Clark JS. E-health: implementation and evaluation research in Scotland -- a scoping exercise. J Telemed Telecare. 2008;14(3):119-21.
- Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O'Brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, Kastner M, Moher D. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Dec;67(12):1291-4.
- Connor H. Work-related learning (WRL) in higher education - a scoping study. Centre for Research Lifelong Learning, Glasgow Caledonian University, Scotland. 2006.
- Daudt HM, van Mossel C, Scott SJ. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team's experience with Arksey and O'Malley's framework. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Mar 23;13(1):48.
- Davis K, Drey N, Gould D. What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(10):1386-400.
- Ehrich K, Freeman GK, Richards S. How to do a scoping exercise: continuity of care. Research Policy and Planning. 2002;20:25-29.
- Forbes A, While A. The contribution of nurses to child health and child health services: findings of a scoping exercise. J Child Health Care. 2007;11(3):231–247.
- Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci. 2010;5:56.
- Gardois P, Colombi N, Grillo G, Villanacci MC. Implementation of web 2.0 services in academic, medical and research libraries: a scoping review. Health Info Libr J. 2012 Jun;29(2):90-109.
- Giustini D, Boulos MNK. Google scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. OJPHI. 2013 July;5(2).
- Goodall DL, Marples G. Approaches to producing credible and useful literature reviews. Cancer Nurs Pract. 2013;12(3).
- Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews. 2012;1:28-4053-1-28. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-28.
- Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108.
- Grindrod K, Forgione A, Tsuyuki RT, Gavura S, Giustini D. Pharmacy 2.0: a scoping review of social media use in pharmacy. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013 Jun 27.
- Hamm MP, Chisholm A, Shulhan J, Milne A, Scott SD, Given LM, Hartling L. Social media use among patients and caregivers: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2013 May 9;3(5).
- Harker J, Kleijnen J. What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012 Dec;10(4):397-410.
- Haynes RB, McKibbon KA. Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ. 2005;330(7501):1179.
- Hyshka E, Karekezi K, Tan B, Slater LG, Jahrig J, Wild TC. The role of consumer perspectives in estimating population need for substance use services: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Mar 20;17(1):217.
- Khangura et al. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews. 2012;1:10.
- Levac D, Colquhon H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Sci. 2010;5:69.
- Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Wieland LS, Coles B, Weightman AL. Methodologicaldevelopments in searching for studies for systematic reviews: past, present and future? Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 25;2:78.
- Mallik M, McGowan B. Issues in practice based learning in nursing in the UK and the Republic of Ireland: results from a multiprofessional scoping exercise. Nurse Ed Today. 2007;27(1):52–59.
- McColl M. Postacute programming for community integration: a scoping review. Brain Impairment. 2007;8(3):238-250.
- Morris M, Boruff JT, Gore GC. Scoping reviews: establishing the role of the librarian. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(4):346–354.
- O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Baxter L, Tricco AC, Straus S, Wickerson L, Nayar A, Moher D, O'Malley L. Advancing scoping study methodology: a web-based survey and consultation of perceptions on terminology, definition and methodological steps. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Jul 26;16(1):305.
- Olson K, Hewit J, Slater LG, Chambers T, Hicks D, Farmer A, Grattan K, Steggles S, Kolb B. Assessing cognitive function in adults during or following chemotherapy: a scoping review. Support Care Cancer. 2016 Jul;24(7):3223-34.
- Paré G, Trudel MC, Jaana M, Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: a typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015;52(2):183-199. doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008
- Paynter R, et al. EPC Methods: An Exploration of the Use of Text-Mining Software in Systematic Reviews. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2016.
- Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):141-6.
- Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research synthesis methods. 2014 Dec 1;5(4):371-85.
- Relevo R, Paynter R. Peer review of search strategies. Methods Research Report. Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center under contract 290-2007-100572. AHRQ Publication 12-EHC068-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. June 2012.
- Reynen E, Robson R, Ivory J, Hwee J, Straus SE, Pham B, Tricco AC. A retrospective comparison of systematic reviews with same-topic rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Dec 16.
- Ring N, Ritchie K, Mandava L, Jepson R. A guide to synthesising qualitative research for researchers undertaking health technology assessments and systematic reviews. NHS Quality Improvement; 2011
- Rumrill PD, Fitzgerald SM, Merchant WR. Using scoping literature reviews as a means of understanding and interpreting existing literature. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation. 2010;35(3):399-404.
- Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, Levac D, Ng C, Sharpe JP, Wilson K, Kenny M, Warren R, Wilson C, Stelfox HT, Straus SE. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Feb 9;16:15.
- Whittemore R, Chao A, Jang M, Minges KE, Park C. Methods for knowledge synthesis: an overview. Heart Lung. 2014 Sep-Oct;43(5):453-61.
- Wilson et al. Community-based organizations in the health sector: a scoping review. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2012;10:36.