When should you choose a scoping review?

JBI guidance supports scoping reviews for purposes such as identifying available evidence, clarifying concepts, examining how research is conducted, identifying knowledge gaps, and informing whether a systematic review may be useful. Do not choose one when your real question requires a precise effect estimate or formal comparison that a focused systematic review should answer.

Scoping review vs. systematic review

Both should be systematic and transparent. A scoping review typically uses a broader question, may include diverse evidence types, and charts characteristics to map the field. A systematic review usually answers a narrower question and often appraises evidence to support a specific conclusion. Critical appraisal in scoping reviews depends on the purpose; do not omit it automatically or imply that mapping evidence proves effectiveness.

PRISMA-ScR guides reporting of scoping reviews. JBI provides conduct guidance. These roles are related but not interchangeable.

Step 1: Define the objective and PCC question

PCC—Population, Concept, Context—is frequently useful for scoping questions.

Illustrative input: university students; generative-AI literacy programs; higher-education settings.

Question: “What types of generative-AI literacy programs have been studied among university students, in which settings, and which outcomes have researchers measured?”

Output: a question that invites mapping rather than a disguised effectiveness claim.

Completion standard: Every planned charting field helps answer the objective.

Step 2: Develop a protocol

Specify the rationale, objectives, question, eligibility criteria, information sources, search, selection process, charting fields, analysis, presentation, and consultation plans. Date the protocol and log amendments. Confirm current registration or publication options for your discipline rather than assuming every registry accepts scoping reviews.

Step 3: Set eligibility criteria

Define populations, concepts, contexts, evidence types, languages, dates, and publication status. Scoping does not mean unlimited. A boundary is legitimate when it follows the objective and its implications are reported.

Step 4: Search broadly and reproducibly

Build concept blocks, translate syntax by database, and document full searches, dates, platforms, filters, and results. Consider gray literature and citation searching when relevant to the map. Breadth must remain auditable.

Example logic:

("generative AI" OR "large language model*")
AND
(literacy OR training OR curriculum)
AND
(university OR college OR undergraduate*)

Step 5: Screen sources transparently

Pilot eligibility rules, preserve deduplication provenance, and record reasons for full-text exclusion. Use a second reviewer or a documented conflict-resolution process when required by your methodology. Report selection with the appropriate flow diagram.

Step 6: Chart the data

“Charting” means structured extraction, not merely drawing a chart. Pilot the form and revise it transparently.

The row is illustrative and not a real study.

Charting form logic

Every field should support a planned map or decision. If the output compares program types by outcome category, chart both with controlled labels. If the output maps terminology, preserve the authors’ original term and add a normalized concept in a separate field. Do not silently overwrite source language.

Pilot the form on sources with different designs. Record when a field is “not reported,” “not applicable,” or “unclear”; these states are not interchangeable.

Step 7: Collate and map evidence

Summarize counts only when definitions are consistent. Map study designs, concepts, populations, settings, and outcome categories. Use tables, matrices, or evidence maps to expose concentrations and absences. Do not label an empty cell a confirmed research gap until you have checked whether the search, terminology, access, or eligibility criteria created it.

Evidence-map output for the worked example

The cells are illustrative. “No eligible evidence found” describes the result of a defined search and eligibility process; it does not prove that no evidence exists anywhere.

Step 8: Consultation when appropriate

Stakeholder consultation can refine interpretation, identify missing terminology or sources, and improve usefulness. It is not a substitute for the literature search, and its role should be described clearly.

Worked example: from question to map

1. Objective:

   Map how university AI-literacy programs are designed and evaluated.

2. PCC:

   University students; AI-literacy programs; higher education.

3. Eligibility:

   Empirical and program-evaluation reports; defined educational intervention; relevant settings.

4. Search record:

   Full query, database/platform, date, filters, result count.

5. Charting fields:

   Program components, duration, delivery mode, outcome definition, design, setting, limitations.

6. Map output:

   A matrix showing which program components have been studied with which outcomes and designs.

7. Permissible conclusion:

   “Evidence is concentrated in short, single-institution programs.”

8. Impermissible conclusion:

   “AI-literacy programs are effective,” unless the included evidence and method support that inference.

Acade workflow: move from charting rows to an evidence map

Acade can support research-question development, literature search and lawful access, source organization, evidence notes, comparisons across user-selected studies, mind maps, outlines, and drafting. For this page’s task, provide the PCC question, controlled charting fields, and reviewer-approved rows. Ask Acade to group those rows by population, concept, context, design, or outcome, then check every group against the matrix before creating the map.

Use Acade to organize the mapped evidence, not to make final inclusion, appraisal, or gap claims without expert review.

Scoping review checklist

• [ ] The objective requires mapping, not a precise effect estimate.

• [ ] PCC elements and eligibility criteria align.

• [ ] A protocol and amendment log exist.

• [ ] Searches are saved exactly as run.

• [ ] Screening decisions are traceable.

• [ ] The charting form has been piloted.

• [ ] Maps do not overstate effectiveness or certainty.

• [ ] JBI conduct guidance and PRISMA-ScR reporting guidance are used appropriately.

FAQ

Is a scoping review easier than a systematic review?

Not inherently. Its question and synthesis differ, but transparent searching, screening, charting, and reporting still require substantial work.

Does a scoping review assess study quality?

It depends on the objective and chosen methodology. Explain whether appraisal is performed and avoid drawing conclusions that require appraisal when it is absent.

Can a scoping review include gray literature?

Yes, when relevant to the objective and eligibility criteria. Explain how it was located and evaluated.

Is PRISMA-ScR a methodology?

It is a reporting guideline. Use appropriate conduct guidance, such as the JBI Manual, for methodological decisions.

Can AI screen studies for me?

AI can assist prioritization or organization, but reviewers remain accountable for eligibility decisions, conflict resolution, and auditability.

Conclusion

A scoping review is valuable when the research task is to map what exists, how it has been studied, and where uncertainty remains. Build it around a clear objective, PCC-informed boundaries, reproducible searches, transparent selection, and a charting form that directly supports the map. Search and organize evidence with Acade, then have the responsible research team verify every source and conclusion.