What is a Scoping Review and How is it Different from a Systematic Review?

Introduction

When researchers set out to explore a topic, they often need to decide which type of literature review method to use. While systematic reviews are well-known for summarizing high-quality evidence to answer specific clinical questions, scoping reviews have emerged as a valuable alternative—especially when a topic is broad or underexplored.

This article explains what a scoping review is, when to use it, and how it differs from a systematic review, so you can choose the best approach for your research needs.

What is a Scoping Review?

A scoping review is a structured method of mapping the breadth and depth of existing research on a given topic. Instead of synthesizing evidence to determine the effectiveness of an intervention (as a systematic review might), a scoping review aims to:

Identify what research exists
Summarize key concepts and definitions
Highlight research gaps
Map out the types of evidence available

The framework most commonly used for scoping reviews was introduced by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and later refined by Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines.

When to Use a Scoping Review

You might conduct a scoping review if:

The research area is emerging or fragmented.
You want to understand how much evidence exists before doing a systematic review.
You’re mapping key concepts, methods, and study types rather than evaluating intervention outcomes.
You need to inform policy, practice, or future research with a broad evidence base.

Example: Before running a systematic review on “Telemedicine for managing chronic pain,” you might first do a scoping review to map all telemedicine interventions studied so far, their contexts, and patient populations.

How Scoping Reviews Differ from Systematic Reviews

While both are structured and reproducible research methods, their purposes and methodologies differ significantly:

Feature	Scoping Review	Systematic Review
Purpose	Explore and map existing literature, identify gaps	Answer a specific, focused research question
Research Question	Broad	Narrow and specific
Evidence Synthesis	Descriptive, may not assess quality	Critical synthesis, often includes meta-analysis
Study Quality Assessment	Usually not required	Always conducted
Time & Resources	Generally shorter and less resource-intensive	More time-consuming and detailed
Outcome	Landscape overview	Evidence-based conclusion about effectiveness

Why Not Just Do a Systematic Review?

A systematic review requires high-quality, comparable studies to synthesize. If a field lacks such studies or has a wide range of methods and outcomes, a systematic review may not be feasible. In these cases, a scoping review acts as a preliminary step—helping researchers decide whether a systematic review is possible or necessary.

Conclusion

A scoping review is a versatile tool for understanding the research landscape, especially in underexplored areas. It differs from a systematic review in purpose, scope, and depth of analysis. Both methods have their place in evidence-based practice, but the choice depends on your research objectives, available literature, and resources.