How to Report a Scoping Review: PRISMA-ScR Checklist Explained with Examples

By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD · 2026-08-27

Quick Answer

• Report scoping reviews using the PRISMA-ScR checklist to ensure transparent, complete reporting of your methods and findings.
• Select the correct reporting guideline through the EQUATOR Network before you begin writing your manuscript.
• The checklist guides reporting but does not dictate how to conduct the review, so follow it alongside established scoping review methods.

Understanding Scoping Reviews and Their Purpose

Scoping reviews map the existing literature on a broad topic to identify key concepts, gaps, and types of evidence available. Unlike systematic reviews that answer focused clinical questions, scoping reviews address broader exploratory questions such as "What is known about X in population Y?" or "What research has been conducted on this intervention across different settings?"

Researchers use scoping reviews to examine the extent and nature of research activity, summarize and disseminate findings, identify gaps in the literature, and clarify key concepts or definitions. This makes scoping reviews particularly valuable for emerging topics where the literature is heterogeneous or has not yet been comprehensively reviewed.

The distinction matters for reporting because scoping reviews do not typically assess the quality of included studies or synthesize effect estimates. Your reporting should reflect this purpose. The PRISMA-ScR checklist was developed specifically to address the reporting needs of scoping reviews, recognizing that they differ from systematic reviews in their objectives, methods, and outputs.

The PRISMA-ScR Checklist: Origins and Purpose

The PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist provides a minimum set of items to report when publishing a scoping review. It was developed through a Delphi consensus process involving researchers, methodologists, and journal editors to address the need for standardized reporting in scoping reviews.

The checklist contains 22 items organized into sections that mirror the structure of a research manuscript: title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and funding. Each item specifies what information should be reported to enable readers to understand what was done and to assess the trustworthiness of the review.

The EQUATOR Network serves as a central repository for reporting guidelines across health research. Researchers should consult this resource to identify the appropriate guideline for their study type and to access the latest versions of reporting checklists. The network's library includes guidelines for systematic reviews, randomized trials, observational studies, and many other study designs.

Selecting the Right Reporting Guideline

Before you begin writing, confirm that PRISMA-ScR is the appropriate guideline for your review type. The EQUATOR Network provides a searchable database of reporting guidelines that can help you make this determination. If you are conducting a systematic review with meta-analysis, you would use the original PRISMA statement. If you are conducting a scoping review, PRISMA-ScR applies.

Consider whether your study might be better described as a systematic review, rapid review, or umbrella review. Each has its own reporting expectations. Mislabeling your review type can lead to inappropriate peer review and rejection. The EQUATOR Network's guideline selection tools can help you match your study design to the correct reporting standard.

Some journals specify which reporting guideline they expect authors to follow. Check the journal's instructions for authors before submission. If the journal does not specify, use the EQUATOR Network to identify the most appropriate guideline and state your choice explicitly in your manuscript.

Title and Abstract Reporting

Title Item

The title of your scoping review should identify the report as a scoping review. This helps readers and database searchers recognize the study type immediately. A clear title also facilitates proper indexing in bibliographic databases.

Example: "Scoping Review of Telehealth Interventions for Chronic Disease Management in Rural Populations"

This title signals the review type and describes the topic. Avoid titles that imply a systematic review or meta-analysis when you conducted a scoping review, as this misleads readers about your methods.

Abstract Item

The abstract should provide a structured summary of the review following the same sections as the full text. Include the objectives, eligibility criteria, sources of evidence, charting methods, results, and conclusions. Many journals require structured abstracts with specific headings, so consult the journal's requirements.

Your abstract should stand alone as an accurate summary of the review. Readers often decide whether to access the full text based on the abstract alone. Ensure that the abstract reflects the content of the full manuscript without introducing new information or omitting key details.

Introduction Section Reporting

Rationale Item

Explain the rationale for the scoping review in the introduction. Describe why the topic warrants a scoping review at this time. Reference the existing literature and identify the knowledge gap your review addresses.

For example, you might explain that preliminary searches revealed a growing body of research on a topic but no comprehensive mapping of the evidence. You might note that definitions vary across studies or that the literature spans multiple disciplines that have not been integrated.

The rationale should connect to the purpose of scoping reviews: to map the literature on a broad topic. Avoid framing your rationale in terms of answering a specific clinical question, as this suggests a systematic review approach.

Objectives Item

State the research question or objectives explicitly. Use the Population, Concept, Context (PCC) framework commonly used for scoping review questions. This framework aligns with the structure of scoping reviews and helps readers understand the scope of your inquiry.

Example objective: "The objective of this scoping review is to map the available evidence on community-based physical activity programs for adults with mobility impairments, including the types of programs, delivery models, and reported outcomes."

Your objectives should be broad enough to capture the range of literature you intend to map but specific enough to guide your search and screening decisions.

Methods Section Reporting

Protocol and Registration Item

Indicate whether a review protocol exists and where it can be accessed. Scoping review protocols can be registered in databases such as the Open Science Framework or published in journals that accept protocol manuscripts. If you did not register a protocol, state this transparently.

Some journals and funders expect protocol registration for systematic reviews, but the expectation for scoping reviews varies. The National Institutes of Health provides guidance on rigorous study design and transparency in research practices, which supports the value of protocol registration for all review types.

Eligibility Criteria Item

Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies in your review. Describe the characteristics of the participants, concept, and context that determine eligibility. Also specify the types of sources you considered, such as peer-reviewed articles, gray literature, conference abstracts, or dissertations.

Provide enough detail that another researcher could apply your criteria to the same body of literature and make consistent decisions. Include the rationale for your criteria, particularly for exclusions that might seem arbitrary without explanation.

Information Sources Item

Describe all information sources you searched, including databases, registers, and other sources such as reference lists or websites. Provide the dates of coverage for each source and the date you conducted the final search.

List the databases you searched, such as PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, or Web of Science. For each database, note any date limits or language restrictions you applied. Describe how you identified additional sources, such as hand-searching reference lists or contacting experts in the field.

Search Strategy Item

Present the full search strategy for at least one major database in an appendix or supplementary file. Include the search terms, Boolean operators, filters, and any database-specific syntax you used. Describe how you adapted the search for other databases.

A complete search strategy allows readers to assess the comprehensiveness of your search and to replicate or update the search in the future. The National Library of Medicine's Bookshelf provides access to biomedical literature and research methods references that can help you develop and document rigorous search strategies.

Selection of Sources of Evidence Item

Describe the process for selecting sources of evidence. State how many reviewers screened titles and abstracts and how many reviewed full texts. Describe how disagreements were resolved, such as through discussion or consultation with a third reviewer.

Report whether screening was conducted independently by multiple reviewers or by a single reviewer. If you used a single reviewer, acknowledge this as a limitation. Describe any pilot testing of the screening process and the tools or software you used to manage the screening.

Data Charting Process Item

Describe the process for extracting or charting data from included sources. Explain how the data charting form was developed and tested. State how many reviewers performed data extraction and how disagreements were resolved.

Data charting in scoping reviews involves extracting descriptive information from each included source, such as author, year, country, study design, population, concept, context, and key findings. Describe whether you contacted study authors to obtain missing information and how you handled sources with incomplete data.

Data Items Item

List and define all variables for which you sought data. Distinguish between variables used for descriptive purposes and those used for analysis. Provide definitions for any variables that might be interpreted differently by different readers.

Common data items in scoping reviews include bibliographic information, study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention or concept details, outcome measures, and key findings. Specify whether you extracted data on study quality or risk of bias, noting that this is not typically done in scoping reviews.

Critical Appraisal of Individual Sources of Evidence Item

If you assessed the quality or risk of bias of included sources, describe the methods you used. If you did not conduct critical appraisal, state this explicitly and explain why. Scoping reviews do not typically include critical appraisal, but some authors choose to include it.

The decision to include critical appraisal should align with your review objectives. If your objective is to map the literature without assessing quality, omit critical appraisal and state this clearly. If you include appraisal, describe the tools used and how the results informed your synthesis.

Synthesis of Results Item

Describe the methods used to synthesize and present the results. Scoping reviews typically use narrative synthesis, descriptive statistics, and tabular or graphical presentation. Describe how you grouped or categorized the data and how you identified themes or patterns.

Explain how you handled heterogeneity in the literature and how you presented findings across different study designs or populations. Describe any quantitative summaries you produced, such as counts of studies by year, country, or design.

Results Section Reporting

Selection of Sources of Evidence Item

Present the numbers of sources screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review. Use a flow diagram to show the flow of information through the different phases of the review. The PRISMA flow diagram template can be adapted for scoping reviews.

Report the number of records identified through database searching and through other sources. Report the number of duplicates removed, records screened, records excluded, full-text articles assessed for eligibility, and full-text articles excluded with reasons. Provide the reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage.

Characteristics of Sources of Evidence Item

Present the characteristics of the included sources in a table or other format. Include bibliographic information and key characteristics such as year of publication, country, study design, population, and concept or intervention studied.

The characteristics table provides readers with an overview of the included literature. Organize the table logically, such as alphabetically by author or chronologically by year. Ensure that the table includes all variables you defined as data items in your methods.

Results of Individual Sources of Evidence Item

Present the data extracted from each included source. For scoping reviews, this typically involves presenting the key findings or observations from each source in a table or narrative summary. Connect the presented data to your research question and objectives.

If you charted data on specific variables, present these data systematically. Consider whether a table, figure, or narrative description best communicates the data. Ensure that the presentation allows readers to see the range of evidence and to identify patterns across sources.

Synthesis of Results Item

Summarize the results of your synthesis, including how the evidence addresses your research question and objectives. Present the main themes or categories you identified and describe the range of evidence within each theme.

Use tables, figures, or other visual presentations to summarize the findings. Consider using a map or diagram to show the distribution of evidence across populations, concepts, or contexts. Ensure that your synthesis addresses each of your stated objectives.

Discussion Section Reporting

Summary of Evidence Item

Summarize the main findings of your review in relation to your objectives. Describe what the review revealed about the extent and nature of the literature on your topic. Highlight the key concepts, gaps, and implications for research and practice.

Keep the summary focused on what your review found instead of restating the results in detail. Connect the findings to the broader literature and to the rationale you presented in the introduction.

Limitations Item

Discuss the limitations of your scoping review. Consider limitations related to the search strategy, such as language restrictions or database coverage. Consider limitations related to the screening and data charting processes, such as single-reviewer screening or incomplete data in primary studies.

Acknowledge that scoping reviews do not assess the quality of included studies and that this limits the conclusions that can be drawn about the strength of the evidence. Discuss how the limitations might affect the interpretation of your findings.

Conclusions Item

State the conclusions of your review and their implications for research, practice, or policy. Describe what the review adds to the existing knowledge and what questions remain unanswered. Identify priorities for future research based on the gaps you identified.

Ensure that your conclusions are supported by the findings you presented. Avoid overstating the implications of your review, particularly if the evidence base is limited or heterogeneous.

Funding Section Reporting

Funding Item

Describe the sources of funding for your scoping review. State whether the funder had any role in the design, conduct, or reporting of the review. If there was no external funding, state this explicitly.

Transparent reporting of funding sources supports the assessment of potential conflicts of interest. The Committee on Publication Ethics identifies transparency in funding and conflicts of interest as core practices for ethical research publication. Disclose any funding that supported the review and any roles the funder played in the research process.

At a Glance: PRISMA-ScR Checklist Items

Practical Implementation Steps

Step 1: Register Your Protocol

Before conducting your scoping review, consider registering a protocol. A protocol documents your planned methods and helps prevent reporting bias. While protocol registration is not mandatory for scoping reviews, it demonstrates transparency and can strengthen your manuscript.

The National Institutes of Health emphasizes the importance of rigorous study design and transparency in research. Registering your protocol aligns with these principles and provides a public record of your planned methods. Choose a registration platform that provides a permanent record and cite the registration in your manuscript.

Step 2: Develop Your Search Strategy

Work with a librarian or information specialist to develop a comprehensive search strategy. Test your search in one major database and refine it based on the results. Document the final search strategy for each database you plan to search.

Include the full search strategy for at least one database in your manuscript or supplementary materials. The National Library of Medicine provides access to biomedical literature and research methods references that can inform your search development. Document the date of each search and any limits you applied.

Step 3: Pilot Your Screening and Charting Forms

Before screening the full set of records, pilot your screening criteria and data charting form on a sample of records. This helps identify ambiguities in your criteria and ensures consistency among reviewers. Revise your forms based on the pilot results.

Document the pilot process in your methods section. Describe how many records were used for the pilot and what changes were made as a result. This level of detail demonstrates the rigor of your methods and helps readers assess the reliability of your findings.

Step 4: Conduct Screening and Data Charting

Screen records against your eligibility criteria, first by title and abstract, then by full text. Use a systematic approach to track your decisions and document reasons for exclusion. Extract data from included sources using your charting form.

Consider using reference management software and screening tools to manage the process. Track the number of records at each stage of screening to complete the flow diagram. Ensure that all reviewers apply the criteria consistently and that disagreements are resolved through discussion.

Step 5: Synthesize and Present Results

Organize the extracted data to address your research question and objectives. Identify themes and patterns across the included sources. Use tables, figures, and narrative description to present your findings.

Consider how to present the range of evidence in a way that is accessible to your intended audience. Use descriptive statistics to summarize the characteristics of the included literature. Ensure that your synthesis addresses each of your stated objectives.

Step 6: Complete the PRISMA-ScR Checklist

Use the PRISMA-ScR checklist to verify that your manuscript includes all required items. For each item, confirm that the information is present and clearly reported. If an item does not apply to your review, explain why in your submission cover letter.

The EQUATOR Network provides access to reporting guidelines and related resources that can help you complete the checklist accurately. Submit the completed checklist with your manuscript as required by the journal. Some journals require the checklist as a supplementary file.

Records and Measurements to Maintain

Maintain detailed records throughout the scoping review process to support transparent reporting. Keep copies of your search strategies for each database, including the date of each search and the number of results retrieved. Document any changes to your search strategy and the reasons for those changes.

Track the screening process systematically, recording the number of records screened at each stage and the reasons for exclusion. Maintain a list of full-text articles excluded and the reasons for exclusion. This information is required for the flow diagram and for the methods section.

Document your data charting process, including the development and testing of your charting form. Keep records of any decisions made during the charting process and how disagreements were resolved. These records support the accuracy and transparency of your reported methods.

Common Failure Patterns in PRISMA-ScR Reporting

Incomplete Search Strategy Reporting

Many manuscripts fail to provide the full search strategy for at least one database. Reviewers and readers cannot assess the comprehensiveness of the search without this information. Always include the full search strategy in an appendix or supplementary file.

Missing Flow Diagram

The flow diagram is a required element of the results section. Some manuscripts describe the selection process in text but omit the diagram. The flow diagram provides a visual summary that helps readers understand the screening process. Include the diagram with the required numbers at each stage.

Vague Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility criteria that are described in general terms without specific details make it difficult for readers to understand what was included and excluded. Specify the population, concept, and context criteria clearly. Provide examples of excluded study types or publication types.

Inadequate Data Charting Description

Some manuscripts describe the data charting process in a single sentence without explaining how the charting form was developed or how data were extracted. Describe the process in enough detail that another researcher could replicate it. State how many reviewers performed charting and how disagreements were resolved.

Overstated Conclusions

Scoping reviews map the literature but do not assess the quality of included studies. Conclusions that make claims about the effectiveness of interventions or the strength of evidence exceed what a scoping review can support. Keep conclusions aligned with the descriptive purpose of the review.

Welfare and Safety Context in Scoping Reviews

When your scoping review addresses topics related to animal welfare, food safety, or public health, consider the ethical context of the research you are mapping. The Committee on Publication Ethics identifies ethical oversight and compliance with relevant regulations as core practices for research publication.

If your review includes studies involving animals or humans, consider whether the primary studies reported appropriate ethical approvals. Note any ethical concerns in your discussion section. The National Institutes of Health provides guidance on responsible conduct of research that applies to the conduct and reporting of your review.

For reviews addressing animal farming or veterinary topics, consider the welfare implications of the interventions or practices described in the included literature. Discuss the welfare context in your synthesis and identify gaps in the evidence related to welfare outcomes.

Professional Escalation Criteria

Consult with a research librarian or information specialist if you are uncertain about the comprehensiveness of your search strategy. A librarian can help you identify relevant databases and develop search terms that capture the full range of literature on your topic.

Seek methodological advice from a researcher experienced in scoping review methods if you are uncertain about the appropriate approach to synthesis or presentation. Methodological errors in scoping reviews can undermine the validity of your findings and lead to rejection.

Consult the EQUATOR Network if you are uncertain about which reporting guideline applies to your review. Using the wrong guideline can lead to incomplete reporting and difficulties during peer review. The network provides resources to help you select and apply the appropriate guideline.

If you encounter disputes about authorship, data integrity, or other publication ethics issues, consult the Committee on Publication Ethics resources for guidance. The committee provides core practices and flowcharts that can help you navigate ethical challenges in research publication.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between PRISMA and PRISMA-ScR?

PRISMA is the reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PRISMA-ScR is the extension for scoping reviews. The two guidelines share some items but differ in important ways. PRISMA-ScR does not require items related to risk of bias assessment or quantitative synthesis, which are typically not part of scoping reviews. Use PRISMA-ScR when your review is a scoping review and PRISMA when your review is a systematic review.

Do I need to register my scoping review protocol?

Protocol registration is not mandatory for scoping reviews, but it is recommended. Registering your protocol demonstrates transparency and provides a public record of your planned methods. Some journals and funders may expect protocol registration. The National Institutes of Health emphasizes rigorous study design and transparency in research, which supports the value of protocol registration.

How do I present the search strategy for my scoping review?

Include the full search strategy for at least one major database in your manuscript or as a supplementary file. Present the search terms, Boolean operators, filters, and database-specific syntax. Describe how you adapted the search for other databases. The National Library of Medicine provides access to research methods references that can help you document your search strategy.

Should I assess the quality of included studies in a scoping review?

Critical appraisal of included studies is not typically part of scoping reviews. The purpose of a scoping review is to map the literature, not to assess the quality of individual studies. If you choose to include critical appraisal, describe your methods and explain how the appraisal results informed your synthesis. If you do not include appraisal, state this explicitly in your methods.

How many reviewers should screen records in a scoping review?

The number of reviewers is a methodological decision that should be described in your methods. Many scoping reviews use two reviewers who screen independently and resolve disagreements through discussion. Some reviews use a single reviewer, particularly when resources are limited. If you use a single reviewer, acknowledge this as a limitation.

What is the PCC framework for scoping review questions?

PCC stands for Population, Concept, and Context. This framework is used to structure scoping review questions and eligibility criteria. Population refers to the participants or subjects of the studies. Concept refers to the intervention, phenomenon, or topic of interest. Context refers to the setting or circumstances of the research. Using the PCC framework helps ensure that your review question is clear and that your eligibility criteria are comprehensive.

Where can I find the PRISMA-ScR checklist and related resources?

The EQUATOR Network provides access to the PRISMA-ScR checklist and other reporting guidelines. The network's website includes the full checklist, explanations of each item, and examples of completed checklists. Consult the EQUATOR Network to ensure you are using the most current version of the guideline.

How do I handle missing data in included studies?

When included studies have missing data, describe how you handled this in your methods. You may contact study authors to request missing information or you may note the missing data as a limitation. Document any attempts to obtain missing data and the outcomes of those attempts. Transparency about missing data supports the assessment of your review's reliability.

Using the Evidence

Related Articles

• The Role of the Research Ethics Committee: What Researchers Need to Know
• Scoping Review vs Meta-Analysis: Clarifying Their Distinct Roles in Evidence Synthesis
• What is a Scientific Report? Structure and Examples
• Scientific Literature Review Format: A Reproducible Structure for Researchers
• Conservation Science Explained: Meaning, Examples, and Career Paths

References and Further Reading

• Research Methods Resources. National Library of Medicine.
• EQUATOR Network. EQUATOR Network.
• Core Practices. Committee on Publication Ethics.
• NIH Grants and Funding. National Institutes of Health.
• ORCID for Researchers. ORCID.
• Data Management and Sharing Policy. National Institutes of Health.
• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• PubMed. National Library of Medicine.

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.