Key Differences Between a Scoping Review and Systematic Review

Introduction

At first glance, scoping reviews and systematic reviews might seem similar—they both use structured, reproducible methods to examine research literature. However, their purpose, scope, methodology, and outcomes are quite different.

Understanding these differences is essential for researchers who want to choose the right review type for their project and for readers who need to interpret the results correctly.

1. Purpose and Research Question

Scoping Review: Designed to map the breadth of literature on a topic, identify gaps, and clarify concepts.
- Example Question: “What interventions exist for managing chronic pain through telehealth?”
Systematic Review: Designed to answer a specific, narrow question by critically appraising and synthesizing high-quality evidence.
- Example Question: “Is telehealth effective in reducing pain scores in adults with chronic pain?”

Key Difference: Scoping reviews explore what exists, while systematic reviews determine what works.

2. Inclusion of Study Designs

Scoping Review: Includes a wide range of study types—qualitative, quantitative, observational, and grey literature—without excluding lower-quality studies.
Systematic Review: Typically includes only studies that meet strict methodological criteria (often randomized controlled trials).

3. Study Quality Assessment

Scoping Review: Generally does not require formal quality assessment. The goal is to map all evidence, regardless of quality.
Systematic Review: Always includes critical appraisal using standardized tools like Cochrane Risk of Bias or GRADE.

4. Data Synthesis

Scoping Review: Uses descriptive or thematic analysis to summarize key themes, study characteristics, and trends.
Systematic Review: Uses quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) or qualitative synthesis to draw conclusions about effectiveness or causality.

5. Time and Resource Requirements

Scoping Review: Typically faster to complete—often 3–6 months—since it doesn’t involve in-depth quality assessment or meta-analysis.
Systematic Review: Can take 12+ months, requiring detailed quality assessment and synthesis.

6. Typical Outcomes

Feature	Scoping Review	Systematic Review
Output	Evidence map, research gap analysis, trend overview	Evidence-based conclusions on intervention effectiveness
Detail Level	Broad overview	In-depth analysis
Decision-making Role	Identifies if a systematic review is feasible	Directly informs clinical or policy decisions

When to Choose Each

Choose a scoping review if:

The topic is broad or emerging.
You want to identify gaps or trends.
Evidence is fragmented or from multiple disciplines.

Choose a systematic review if:

The question is specific.
Sufficient high-quality studies exist.
You need evidence for decision-making or guidelines.

Conclusion

While both review types are valuable, they serve different roles in evidence synthesis. Scoping reviews help you understand the research landscape; systematic reviews help you make evidence-based decisions. The choice depends on your research goals, available literature, and resources.

Meta Title: Key Differences Between a Scoping Review and Systematic Review
Meta Description: Learn the key differences between scoping and systematic reviews, including purpose, methodology, outcomes, and when to use each.