Scoping Review vs. Integrative Review
By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD ·
Quick Answer
- Choose a scoping review to map the breadth of evidence on a broad topic, and choose an integrative review to synthesize findings across diverse study designs for a focused question.
- Your next step is to draft a clear research question and use it to select the review type, then locate the matching reporting guideline through the EQUATOR Network.
- A key limitation is that both review types require systematic, transparent methods and cannot substitute for a full systematic review when the goal is pooled effect estimates.
Understanding the Two Review Types
Researchers in the life sciences face a common decision when planning a literature synthesis. The choice between a scoping review and an integrative review shapes every subsequent step, from the search strategy to the final output. Both approaches offer rigorous ways to synthesize existing knowledge, but they answer fundamentally different questions and produce different kinds of evidence.
A scoping review maps the existing literature on a topic to identify the volume, nature, and characteristics of available evidence. It answers questions about what is known, where the gaps are, and how research has been conducted in a particular area. An integrative review, by contrast, synthesizes findings from studies using different methodologies to produce a more complete understanding of a specific phenomenon or problem.
The distinction matters for practical reasons. Your choice determines the reporting standards you must follow, the depth of critical appraisal you must perform, and the type of conclusion you can legitimately draw. Selecting the wrong approach can lead to wasted effort, rejected manuscripts, and conclusions that do not match the evidence base.
At a Glance
| Feature | Scoping Review | Integrative Review |
|---|---|---|
| Primary purpose | Map the breadth and nature of evidence on a broad topic | Synthesize findings across diverse methodologies for a focused question |
| Typical research question | Broad, exploratory, often includes "what is known" or "what evidence exists" | Focused, integrative, often addresses a specific phenomenon or intervention |
| Study designs included | Any design, often heterogeneous | Multiple designs deliberately combined for a holistic view |
| Critical appraisal | Often limited or optional, depending on the framework | Usually required and applied systematically |
| Output | Evidence map, gap identification, research recommendations | Integrated conclusions, new conceptual understanding, theory development |
| Common reporting guideline | PRISMA-ScR | Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool or discipline-specific guidance |
Core Principles of Scoping Reviews
Purpose and Scope
A scoping review serves as a reconnaissance tool for the research landscape. It helps you determine the size and scope of available literature, identify key concepts, and recognize gaps where primary research is needed. This approach is particularly valuable when a topic is emerging, when the literature is complex or heterogeneous, or when no prior review has mapped the area.
The scoping review methodology follows a structured process that begins with identifying the research question and relevant studies. You then select studies according to predefined criteria, chart the data from included studies, and collate, summarize, and report the results. The process is iterative, meaning you may refine your search strategy as you become more familiar with the literature.
When to Use a Scoping Review
Scoping reviews fit several specific situations. You might use one to examine the extent and nature of research activity in a field, to clarify key definitions and conceptual boundaries, or to identify whether a full systematic review is feasible. They also serve to identify gaps in the evidence base and to inform future research priorities.
In the life sciences, scoping reviews commonly address questions such as what evidence exists on a particular agricultural practice, how research on a disease has evolved over time, or which outcome measures have been used in studies of a specific intervention. The broad nature of these questions means the review can include studies with varied designs, populations, and settings.
Methodological Steps
The scoping review process begins with a clearly articulated research question. You then develop a search strategy that balances sensitivity with precision, aiming to capture the breadth of relevant literature. The search typically covers multiple databases and may include gray literature sources.
Study selection follows predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Unlike a systematic review, a scoping review does not necessarily require a formal quality assessment of included studies. Instead, the focus is on charting the data in a structured way that allows you to describe the evidence base comprehensively.
Data charting involves extracting key characteristics from each included study, such as author, year, country, study design, population, and main findings. You then collate and summarize these data to present a descriptive overview of the literature. The final output typically includes a narrative summary accompanied by tables and figures that illustrate the evidence landscape.
Core Principles of Integrative Reviews
Purpose and Scope
An integrative review takes a different path. It aims to synthesize findings from studies that use different methodologies to produce a more complete understanding of a specific topic. This approach allows you to combine theoretical literature with empirical studies, qualitative with quantitative research, and experimental with observational designs.
The integrative review is particularly suited to questions that benefit from multiple perspectives. For example, you might use it to understand how a particular farming intervention affects animal welfare by combining quantitative measures of physiological stress with qualitative studies of handler behavior and observational studies of animal behavior.
When to Use an Integrative Review
Integrative reviews fit research questions that require a holistic understanding of a phenomenon. They are appropriate when the evidence base includes diverse study designs that cannot be meaningfully combined through statistical meta-analysis alone. The approach also suits topics where theoretical development is needed alongside empirical synthesis.
In the life sciences, integrative reviews commonly address questions about complex interventions, patient or animal experiences, and the relationships between multiple factors. The method allows you to draw conclusions that integrate findings across methodological boundaries, producing insights that would not emerge from any single study type.
Methodological Steps
The integrative review follows a structured process that includes problem identification, literature search, data evaluation, data analysis, and presentation. The problem identification stage requires a clear statement of the review purpose and the variables of interest.
The literature search for an integrative review must be comprehensive and transparent. You should document your search strategy, including databases searched, search terms used, and any limits applied. The goal is to locate all relevant studies, regardless of methodology.
Data evaluation in an integrative review involves assessing the quality of included sources. This step is more rigorous than in a scoping review because the synthesis depends on the credibility of the individual studies. You should apply appropriate quality criteria based on the study designs included.
Data analysis in an integrative review involves reducing, displaying, comparing, and drawing conclusions from the extracted data. You may use constant comparison methods, thematic analysis, or other approaches to identify patterns and themes across studies. The final presentation should clearly show how the integrated findings address the review question.
Comparing Purposes and Outputs
What Each Review Can and Cannot Do
A scoping review tells you what evidence exists and where the gaps are. It cannot tell you the size of an intervention effect or provide a pooled estimate of outcomes across studies. The output is descriptive and maps the territory instead of testing hypotheses.
An integrative review tells you what the combined evidence suggests about a focused question. It can generate new conceptual frameworks and identify patterns across diverse studies. It cannot provide a statistical summary of effect sizes in the way a meta-analysis can, because the included studies are too heterogeneous in design and measurement.
Decision Criteria for Choosing
Your research question is the primary driver of your choice. If your question asks about the breadth of evidence, the range of study designs, or the gaps in a field, a scoping review is appropriate. If your question asks about what the combined evidence means for a specific phenomenon or intervention, an integrative review is the better fit.
Consider the maturity of the evidence base. Emerging topics with limited or scattered literature often benefit from a scoping review to establish what is known. More mature topics with a substantial body of diverse research may be better served by an integrative review that synthesizes findings across methodologies.
Consider your available resources. Scoping reviews can be less time-intensive because they do not require the same depth of quality appraisal. Integrative reviews demand more analytical work because you must evaluate and synthesize studies with different designs and quality levels.
Practical Workflow for Selecting Your Review Type
Step 1: Define Your Research Question
Write your research question in plain language before considering methodology. Ask yourself what you want to know and why it matters. A question about the range of evidence on a topic points toward a scoping review. A question about what the evidence means for practice or theory points toward an integrative review.
Test your question against the frameworks used for each review type. Scoping reviews often use the PCC framework, which stands for Population, Concept, and Context. Integrative reviews may use frameworks that accommodate diverse study designs and theoretical perspectives.
Step 2: Assess the Evidence Landscape
Conduct a preliminary search to gauge the volume and nature of available literature. If you find a large body of heterogeneous studies that have never been systematically mapped, a scoping review can provide value. If you find a focused body of research using diverse methods that has not been integrated, an integrative review may be more appropriate.
Look for existing reviews in your area. If a recent scoping review already maps the evidence, your contribution may be better made through an integrative review that synthesizes findings. If an integrative review already exists, a scoping review might identify new evidence that has emerged since.
Step 3: Consider Your End Goal
Think about what you will do with the review findings. If your goal is to identify research priorities and justify future studies, a scoping review delivers this directly. If your goal is to inform practice or develop theory based on the combined evidence, an integrative review is the stronger choice.
Consider your audience. Researchers seeking to understand the state of a field will find a scoping review useful. Practitioners and policymakers seeking guidance on what the evidence suggests may find an integrative review more actionable.
Step 4: Select the Reporting Guideline
Once you have chosen your review type, identify the appropriate reporting guideline. The EQUATOR Network provides a searchable database of reporting guidelines for health research, including those specific to scoping and integrative reviews. Using the correct guideline ensures your review meets transparency standards and is more likely to pass peer review.
The EQUATOR Network resource helps you find the right guideline for your study design. This step is essential because reviewers and editors increasingly expect adherence to recognized reporting standards.
Records and Measurements
Documentation Requirements
Both review types require meticulous documentation of your process. You should record your research question, search strategy, database sources, search dates, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the number of records identified, screened, and included at each stage.
A PRISMA-style flow diagram is commonly used to document the study selection process. This diagram shows the number of records identified through database searching, the number removed as duplicates, the number screened, the number excluded with reasons, and the final number included in the review.
Data Extraction Forms
Develop a standardized data extraction form before you begin charting or extracting data. For a scoping review, the form typically captures bibliographic details, study characteristics, and key findings relevant to the review question. For an integrative review, the form may also capture methodological quality indicators and specific outcome data.
Test your extraction form on a small sample of studies before applying it to the full set. This pilot test helps you identify missing fields, ambiguous categories, and other issues that could compromise consistency.
Quality Assessment Records
For integrative reviews, document your quality assessment process. Record the criteria used for each study design, the ratings assigned, and how quality influenced your synthesis. This transparency allows readers to judge the credibility of your conclusions.
For scoping reviews, document your decision about whether to conduct quality appraisal. Some scoping review frameworks include quality assessment, while others do not. Your choice should be justified and recorded in your methods.
Common Failure Patterns
Confusing the Two Review Types
A frequent error is treating a scoping review as a lighter version of a systematic review or using an integrative review without a clear integrative question. These approaches have distinct purposes and methods. Mixing them produces a review that satisfies neither set of expectations.
Avoid labeling a review as scoping when you have conducted a full quality appraisal and meta-analysis. Similarly, avoid calling a review integrative when you have simply summarized studies without synthesizing findings across methodologies.
Inadequate Search Strategies
Both review types depend on comprehensive literature searches. A common failure is searching only one or two databases or using overly narrow search terms. This approach misses relevant studies and undermines the validity of your conclusions.
Develop your search strategy with input from a librarian or information specialist. Document all databases searched, the full search strings used, and any modifications made during the process. This documentation is essential for reproducibility.
Insufficient Transparency
Reviewers and editors increasingly expect full transparency about methods. Failing to report your search strategy, inclusion criteria, and decision-making process is a common reason for manuscript rejection. The EQUATOR Network resources emphasize the importance of complete and transparent reporting in research.
Follow the reporting guideline for your review type from the outset. This approach ensures you collect all necessary information during the review process instead of trying to reconstruct it afterward.
Overstating Conclusions
A scoping review cannot support claims about intervention effectiveness because it does not synthesize effect sizes. An integrative review cannot support claims about causality if the included studies are primarily observational. Match your conclusions to the strength of your evidence and the capabilities of your review design.
Limitations and Boundaries
What Scoping Reviews Cannot Provide
Scoping reviews do not provide answers about what works or what the size of an effect is. They describe the evidence landscape but do not test hypotheses or pool results. If your question requires an estimate of intervention effectiveness, you need a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Scoping reviews also do not provide a quality-filtered synthesis. Because they typically include studies regardless of methodological quality, the findings may include evidence from weak studies. This limitation should be acknowledged in your discussion.
What Integrative Reviews Cannot Provide
Integrative reviews cannot provide a statistical summary of effect sizes across studies. The diversity of included methodologies means that quantitative pooling is usually inappropriate. The synthesis is narrative and conceptual instead of statistical.
Integrative reviews also depend heavily on the quality of included studies. If the evidence base contains many weak studies, the integrated conclusions inherit that weakness. Rigorous quality appraisal is essential, but it cannot compensate for a fundamentally limited evidence base.
Jurisdictional and Institutional Considerations
Research standards and expectations vary across institutions and funders. The National Institutes of Health provides guidance on grant applications and research conduct that may affect how you plan and document your review. Review the relevant policies before you begin.
Data management expectations also apply to review research. The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy describes expectations for planning and sharing research data. Even though a review synthesizes existing data, your search strategies, extraction forms, and analysis files are research outputs that may fall under these expectations.
Welfare and Safety Context
Ethical Conduct in Review Research
Reviews involve ethical responsibilities even though they do not involve direct research participants. You must accurately represent the findings of included studies, avoid selective citation, and report your methods honestly. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices outline expectations for authorship, peer review, and research conduct that apply to review authors.
Authorship of a review carries the same responsibilities as authorship of any research publication. All authors must have made substantial contributions to the conception, conduct, or analysis of the review and must take responsibility for the content. Disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence your interpretation of the evidence.
Data Integrity and Management
Maintain the integrity of your data throughout the review process. Keep records of all search results, screening decisions, and extraction data. Store these records securely and make them available for verification if requested.
The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy emphasizes the importance of planning for data management and sharing. For review research, this planning includes deciding how you will document your search process, store your screening records, and share your extraction data.
Professional Escalation Criteria
When to Seek Additional Expertise
Recognize when your review requires expertise beyond your own. If your research question spans multiple disciplines, consider involving researchers with complementary expertise. If your search strategy is complex, consult a librarian or information specialist.
If you are uncertain about the appropriate review type for your question, seek guidance from a methodologist or an experienced reviewer before you begin. This consultation can save substantial time and effort compared with discovering a methodological mismatch after data collection has begun.
When to Consult Institutional Resources
Your institution may have resources to support review research. Research offices, library services, and methodology centers often provide guidance on review methods, reporting standards, and data management. Consult these resources early in your planning process.
If your review is part of a funded project, review your funding agreement for specific requirements. The NIH Grants and Funding resources describe expectations for grant applications and award management that may affect your review planning and conduct.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the main difference between a scoping review and an integrative review?
A scoping review maps the breadth and nature of evidence on a broad topic, identifying what exists and where gaps are. An integrative review synthesizes findings from studies using different methodologies to produce a more complete understanding of a focused question. The scoping review describes the evidence landscape, while the integrative review combines evidence across study designs.
Can I use a scoping review to answer a question about intervention effectiveness?
No. A scoping review describes what evidence exists but does not synthesize effect sizes or test hypotheses. If your question requires an estimate of intervention effectiveness, you need a systematic review with meta-analysis. A scoping review can help you determine whether sufficient evidence exists to justify a full systematic review.
Do I need to assess study quality in a scoping review?
Quality assessment is not always required in scoping reviews, depending on the framework you follow. Some scoping review frameworks include quality appraisal, while others focus on charting the evidence without formal quality assessment. Document your decision and justify it in your methods.
How do I choose between a scoping review and an integrative review for my research question?
Examine your research question. If it asks about the range of evidence, study designs, or gaps in a field, choose a scoping review. If it asks what the combined evidence suggests about a specific phenomenon or intervention, choose an integrative review. Consider the maturity of the evidence base and your end goal.
What reporting guideline should I use for my review?
Use the EQUATOR Network database to identify the appropriate reporting guideline for your review type. The EQUATOR Network provides a searchable collection of reporting guidelines for health research. Select the guideline that matches your specific review design and follow it throughout your project.
Can an integrative review include both qualitative and quantitative studies?
Yes. The integrative review approach is specifically designed to synthesize findings across diverse methodologies, including qualitative and quantitative studies. This capacity to combine different study types is a defining feature of the integrative review and distinguishes it from other review approaches.
How long does a scoping or integrative review take to complete?
The time required varies substantially based on the topic breadth, the volume of literature, and the size of your team. Both review types require systematic searching, screening, and data extraction, which are time-intensive processes. Plan for several months from protocol development to manuscript submission.
What are the most common reasons reviews are rejected by journals?
Common rejection reasons include inadequate search strategies, insufficient transparency about methods, conclusions that overstate what the evidence supports, and failure to follow the appropriate reporting guideline. Using the EQUATOR Network to identify and follow the correct reporting standard from the outset can help you avoid these problems.
Using the Evidence
| Source | Best use in this topic | Important limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Research Methods Resources | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements |
| EQUATOR Network | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements |
| Core Practices | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements |
Related Articles
- Meta-Analysis vs Scoping Review: Which Approach Answers Your Question?
- Shotgun Metagenomics vs 16S rRNA Sequencing: Which Method Fits the Question?
- Scoping Review vs Meta-Analysis: Clarifying Their Distinct Roles in Evidence Synthesis
- Open Science Practices: A Guide for Researchers
- Peer Review Metrics: What They Are and How to Use Them
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.