# Reporting Standards for Scoping Reviews ## Quick Answer - Use PRISMA-ScR when reporting a scoping review and PRISMA 2020 when reporting a systematic review, since each checklist matches a distinct review type. - Select the checklist before data extraction and register the review protocol to keep reporting consistent with the chosen guideline. - PRISMA-ScR does not replace PRISMA 2020, and neither checklist substitutes for a registered protocol or ethics oversight. ## Understanding Scoping Reviews and Their Reporting Requirements Scoping reviews map the breadth of evidence on a topic instead of answer a narrow clinical question. Researchers use them to identify key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps in the literature. Because scoping reviews serve a different purpose than systematic reviews, they require a distinct reporting standard. The PRISMA-ScR checklist was developed specifically for scoping reviews. It contains 22 items that guide authors through reporting the rationale, objectives, protocol, eligibility criteria, information sources, search strategy, selection process, data charting process, data items, critical appraisal, synthesis of results, and limitations. The checklist also covers funding and conflicts of interest. PRISMA 2020, the updated version of the original PRISMA statement, applies to systematic reviews. It includes 27 items organized into seven sections: title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and other information. The 2020 revision added items about search peer review, reporting bias assessment, certainty of evidence, and registration. The choice between these two checklists depends on the review type you are conducting. A scoping review maps evidence breadth. A systematic review answers a focused question with rigorous synthesis. Using the wrong checklist creates reporting gaps that reviewers and editors will flag. ## At a Glance: PRISMA-ScR vs PRISMA 2020 | Feature | PRISMA-ScR | PRISMA 2020 | |---------|------------|-------------| | Review type | Scoping reviews | Systematic reviews | | Number of items | 22 | 27 | | Critical appraisal | Optional, reported if performed | Required for included studies | | Synthesis | Narrative mapping of evidence | Quantitative or qualitative synthesis | | Protocol registration | Recommended | Required for most journals | | Risk of bias assessment | Not required | Required | | Certainty of evidence | Not addressed | Required item | | Search peer review | Not a separate item | Separate item in methods | The table shows the structural differences between the two checklists. Scoping reviews do not require risk of bias assessment or certainty of evidence ratings because they do not synthesize effect estimates. Systematic reviews must address both to support conclusions about intervention effects. ## Core Principles of Transparent Research Reporting Transparent reporting means providing enough detail for readers to understand what you did and why. The EQUATOR Network maintains a collection of reporting guidelines for different study types and supports the selection of appropriate guidelines for health research. Using an established checklist helps authors include all essential elements and helps reviewers assess completeness. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices outline fundamental expectations for research publication. These practices cover authorship, duplicate submission, plagiarism, data fabrication, and conflict of interest. Reporting guidelines complement these ethical standards by making the research process visible and verifiable. For scoping reviews, transparency matters because the method is relatively new and often misunderstood. Readers need to see how you defined the scope, which sources you searched, how you selected studies, and how you charted the data. Without this detail, the review cannot be reproduced or evaluated. ## Selecting the Correct Reporting Guideline ### Identify Your Review Type First Before choosing a checklist, define your research question and purpose. A scoping review addresses broad questions such as "What is known about X?" or "What types of evidence exist on Y?" A systematic review addresses focused questions such as "Does intervention A improve outcome B compared with intervention C?" The review type determines the appropriate reporting guideline. If your question is exploratory and your goal is to map evidence, use PRISMA-ScR. If your question is specific and your goal is to estimate effects, use PRISMA 2020. ### Match the Checklist to the Review Method PRISMA-ScR items align with the scoping review framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The checklist expects authors to report the rationale for the scoping review, the research questions, and the protocol. It also expects a clear description of the search strategy, including all databases, date ranges, and search terms. PRISMA 2020 items align with systematic review methodology. The checklist expects authors to report the eligibility criteria, all information sources, the complete search strategy for each database, the study selection process, and the data collection process. It also requires reporting of risk of bias assessment, effect measures, synthesis methods, and certainty of evidence. ### Consider Journal Requirements Many journals specify which reporting guideline authors must follow. Check the journal's instructions for authors before you begin writing. Some journals require the completed checklist as a supplementary file at submission. Others ask authors to indicate where each item is addressed in the manuscript. The EQUATOR Network provides a searchable database of reporting guidelines and journal policies. Authors can use this resource to confirm which guideline applies to their target journal and to find the latest version of each checklist. ## Practical Workflow for Using PRISMA-ScR ### Step 1: Register the Protocol Register your scoping review protocol before starting the review. Protocol registration makes your methods public and reduces the risk of unplanned changes. Some registries accept scoping review protocols, and many journals expect registration as a condition of publication. The protocol should describe the research questions, eligibility criteria, sources, search strategy, selection process, and data charting plan. This document becomes the reference point for your final report. ### Step 2: Develop the Search Strategy Build a search strategy for each database you plan to use. Include the full search strings in an appendix or supplementary file. Report the date each search was run and any limits applied, such as language or publication date restrictions. For scoping reviews, the search is typically broader than for systematic reviews. You may need to search multiple databases, trial registries, and grey literature sources to capture the full range of evidence. ### Step 3: Screen and Select Sources Screen titles and abstracts against your eligibility criteria, then screen full texts. Record the number of records identified, screened, excluded, and included at each stage. Use a flow diagram to show the selection process. PRISMA-ScR expects authors to report the number of sources screened, the number assessed for eligibility, and the number included. The checklist also asks for the reasons why sources were excluded at the full-text stage. ### Step 4: Chart the Data Data charting in scoping reviews is analogous to data extraction in systematic reviews. Develop a data charting form that captures the key information from each included source. This form typically includes author, year, country, study design, population, concept, context, and key findings. Pilot the form on several sources before applying it to all included studies. Report the charting process in your methods section, including who performed the charting and how disagreements were resolved. ### Step 5: Report the Results Present the results as a narrative summary with tables and figures. Scoping reviews do not typically include meta-analysis or statistical synthesis. Instead, they describe the range of evidence, identify patterns and gaps, and present the findings in a structured format. The results section should align with your research questions. Use tables to summarize the characteristics of included sources and to show the distribution of evidence across themes or categories. ## Comparing PRISMA-ScR and PRISMA 2020 Items ### Title and Abstract PRISMA-ScR item 1 asks for the title to identify the report as a scoping review. PRISMA 2020 item 1 asks for the title to identify the report as a systematic review. Both checklists require a structured abstract that summarizes the key elements of the review. The abstract for a scoping review should state the objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. It should also mention the sources searched and the number of included studies. ### Introduction PRISMA-ScR items 2 and 3 cover the rationale and objectives. The rationale should explain why a scoping review is needed and how it fits with existing knowledge. The objectives should state the research questions clearly. PRISMA 2020 items 2 and 3 cover the rationale and objectives in a similar way. The rationale for a systematic review typically includes a summary of existing evidence and the gap the review addresses. ### Methods The methods sections of the two checklists differ substantially. PRISMA-ScR includes items on protocol and registration, eligibility criteria, information sources, search, selection of sources, data charting process, data items, critical appraisal, and synthesis of results. PRISMA 2020 includes items on eligibility criteria, information sources, search strategy, selection process, data collection process, data items, risk of bias assessment, effect measures, synthesis methods, reporting bias assessment, and certainty of evidence. The key difference is that PRISMA 2020 requires risk of bias assessment and certainty of evidence, while PRISMA-ScR treats critical appraisal as optional. Scoping reviews may include a critical appraisal of included sources, but this is not a required element of the method. ### Results PRISMA-ScR expects authors to report the selection of sources, characteristics of sources, critical appraisal results if performed, and results of individual sources. The synthesis of results in a scoping review is descriptive and organized around themes or concepts. PRISMA 2020 expects authors to report study selection, study characteristics, risk of bias in included studies, results of individual studies, results of syntheses, reporting biases, and certainty of evidence. The synthesis may include meta-analysis or other statistical methods. ### Discussion Both checklists ask for a summary of evidence, limitations, and conclusions. PRISMA-ScR also asks for a discussion of the implications for future research, policy, and practice. PRISMA 2020 asks for a discussion of the evidence in the context of other research and the implications for practice and research. ### Other Information Both checklists include items on registration, funding, and conflicts of interest. PRISMA 2020 also includes an item on availability of data, code, and other materials. PRISMA-ScR does not have a separate item for data availability, though authors should follow journal policies on data sharing. ## When to Use PRISMA 2020 Instead Use PRISMA 2020 when your review answers a focused question about the effects of an intervention, the accuracy of a diagnostic test, or the strength of an association. Systematic reviews require a comprehensive search, risk of bias assessment, and synthesis of results. PRISMA 2020 provides the reporting framework for these elements. The National Library of Medicine hosts research methods resources that explain the differences between review types. These resources help authors understand when a systematic review is appropriate and what the method requires. Systematic reviews are often used to inform clinical guidelines and policy decisions. The rigorous methods and transparent reporting required by PRISMA 2020 support the use of review findings in decision making. ## Common Failure Patterns in Scoping Review Reporting ### Missing Protocol Registration Many scoping reviews are published without a registered protocol. This omission makes it difficult for readers to distinguish planned methods from post hoc decisions. Register the protocol before starting the review and report the registration details in the manuscript. ### Incomplete Search Reporting Authors often report the databases searched but omit the full search strings, date limits, or filters applied. PRISMA-ScR expects a complete description of the search strategy. Include the full search strings for at least one database in the main text or supplementary file. ### Confusing Scoping Review With Systematic Review Some manuscripts describe a scoping review but apply systematic review methods or vice versa. This confusion leads to mismatched reporting and reviewer criticism. Clarify the review type in the title and methods, and use the corresponding checklist. ### Omitting the Data Charting Process The data charting process is a defining feature of scoping reviews. Authors sometimes describe what data were charted but not how the charting was done. Report who developed the charting form, how it was piloted, and how disagreements were resolved. ### Ignoring the Optional Critical Appraisal PRISMA-ScR does not require critical appraisal, but if you perform one, you must report it. Some authors appraise included studies but do not describe the appraisal tool or process. If you choose to appraise, report the tool used and the results. ## Records and Measurements for Scoping Reviews Keep detailed records throughout the review process. These records support the final report and help you respond to reviewer comments. Maintain a log of all database searches, including the date, database, platform, and search string. Record the number of records retrieved from each source. Track the screening decisions for each record, including the reasons for exclusion at full-text review. Document the data charting form and any revisions made during the pilot phase. Record who charted each source and how discrepancies were resolved. Keep a list of included sources with their key characteristics. These records serve as the audit trail for your review. They demonstrate that the review was conducted systematically and that the reported results are accurate. ## Quality Controls and Verification Steps ### Pilot the Data Charting Form Test the charting form on a sample of included sources before applying it to all studies. This step identifies missing fields, ambiguous definitions, and formatting issues. Revise the form based on the pilot results and report this process in the methods. ### Double Check the Search Strategy Have a second person review the search strategy for each database. Check for spelling errors, incorrect Boolean operators, and missing synonyms. The search should be reproducible by another researcher. ### Verify the Flow Diagram The flow diagram must accurately reflect the numbers reported in the text. Check that the number of records identified equals the sum of records from all sources. Verify that the number screened equals the number identified minus duplicates and records removed for other reasons. ### Confirm the Checklist Items Before submission, go through the PRISMA-ScR checklist item by item. Confirm that each item is addressed somewhere in the manuscript. If an item does not apply, state this explicitly instead of leaving it blank. ## Limitations of PRISMA-ScR PRISMA-ScR does not prescribe how to conduct a scoping review. It only guides reporting. Authors must still follow established scoping review methods, including the framework by Arksey and O'Malley or the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. The checklist does not require risk of bias assessment or certainty of evidence. This limitation means that scoping reviews cannot support conclusions about the effectiveness of interventions. Authors should avoid making claims about intervention effects based on scoping review findings. PRISMA-ScR does not address the quality of the included sources. A scoping review can include studies of varying quality, and the checklist does not require authors to assess or report this variation. Readers should interpret scoping review findings with this limitation in mind. ## Safety and Regulatory Context Scoping reviews that inform clinical or policy decisions must be conducted with attention to ethical standards. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices emphasize the importance of accurate reporting, proper attribution, and disclosure of conflicts of interest. Authors should follow these practices throughout the review process. Research involving human participants, even in secondary analysis, may require ethics approval depending on institutional policy. Check with your institution before starting the review. Some institutions require ethics review for any research involving human data, including published studies. Funding agencies may have specific requirements for research reporting. The National Institutes of Health provides guidance on grant policy and application requirements. If your scoping review is funded by NIH, review the funding announcement for reporting expectations. ## Data Management and Sharing Considerations The National Institutes of Health Data Management and Sharing Policy applies to NIH-funded research. This policy expects researchers to plan for data management and sharing, including the data that support their findings. For scoping reviews, the relevant data include search strategies, screening decisions, and charted data. Develop a data management plan that describes how you will store, organize, and share the review data. Consider depositing the search strategies, screening logs, and charting forms in a public repository. This practice supports transparency and allows others to verify your findings. The policy also expects researchers to cite data in publications. If you share your review data, provide a persistent identifier such as a DOI. This identifier allows readers to access the data and supports proper attribution. ## Professional Escalation Criteria Seek guidance from a librarian or information specialist when developing the search strategy. These professionals can help you identify appropriate databases, build comprehensive searches, and document the search process. Consult a statistician if your scoping review includes quantitative synthesis or if you are considering meta-analysis. A statistician can advise on whether meta-analysis is appropriate and how to conduct it correctly. Contact the journal editor before submission if you are unsure which reporting guideline applies. Editors can clarify their expectations and direct you to the relevant checklist. If you encounter disputes about authorship, data integrity, or duplicate publication, follow the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines. These guidelines provide a framework for addressing research misconduct and publication ethics issues. ## Researcher Identity and Record Maintenance Maintain an ORCID record that links your publications, datasets, and other research outputs. ORCID provides a persistent identifier that distinguishes you from other researchers with similar names. This identifier is increasingly required by journals and funding agencies. Update your ORCID record when your scoping review is published. Add the publication, any associated datasets, and your role in the research. This record supports accurate attribution and helps others find your work. The ORCID for Researchers page explains how to create and maintain your record. It also describes how ORCID integrates with manuscript submission systems and funding platforms. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the main difference between PRISMA-ScR and PRISMA 2020? PRISMA-ScR is designed for scoping reviews that map evidence breadth, while PRISMA 2020 is designed for systematic reviews that answer focused questions. PRISMA 2020 requires risk of bias assessment and certainty of evidence, which PRISMA-ScR does not. ### Can I use PRISMA 2020 for a scoping review? You can use PRISMA 2020 as a general reporting guide, but it includes items that do not apply to scoping reviews, such as risk of bias assessment and certainty of evidence. PRISMA-ScR is the appropriate checklist for scoping reviews. ### Do I need to register my scoping review protocol? Protocol registration is recommended for scoping reviews and required by many journals. Registration makes your methods public and helps prevent unplanned changes. Check your target journal's requirements before starting. ### Is critical appraisal required in a scoping review? Critical appraisal is optional in scoping reviews. PRISMA-ScR includes an item for critical appraisal but states that it is performed if the review includes this step. If you appraise included sources, you must report the process and results. ### How do I report the search strategy in a scoping review? Report all databases searched, the date of each search, and the full search strings for at least one database. Include any limits applied, such as language or date restrictions. Provide the complete search strategies in a supplementary file. ### What is the difference between data extraction and data charting? Data extraction is used in systematic reviews to collect outcome data for synthesis. Data charting is used in scoping reviews to collect descriptive information about the sources. The charting form captures author, year, country, design, population, concept, context, and key findings. ### Can a scoping review include a meta-analysis? Meta-analysis is not typical for scoping reviews because the purpose is to map evidence, not to estimate effects. If you perform quantitative synthesis, you should consider whether a systematic review is more appropriate for your question. ### Where can I find the PRISMA-ScR checklist? The EQUATOR Network maintains a database of reporting guidelines, including PRISMA-ScR. The checklist is also available from the PRISMA website and from many journal websites that require its use. ## Using the Evidence | Source | Best use in this topic | Important limitation | |---|---|---| | [Research Methods Resources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books) | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements | | [EQUATOR Network](https://www.equator-network.org/) | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements | | [Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements | ## Related Articles - [Guidelines for Meta-Analysis: Reporting Standards and Best Practices](/blog/guides/guidelines-for-meta-analysis-reporting-standards-and-best-practices) - [Meta-Analysis vs Scoping Review: Which Approach Answers Your Question?](/blog/guides/meta-analysis-vs-scoping-review-which-approach-answers-your-question) - [Bioinformatics vs. Computational Biology: What's the Difference (and Which Should You Choose)?](/blog/careers/bioinformatics-vs-computational-biology) - [qPCR Efficiency Calculation And Reporting](/blog/guides/qpcr-efficiency-calculation-and-reporting) - [Difference Between Dna And Rna](/blog/guides/difference-between-dna-and-rna) ## References and Further Reading - [Research Methods Resources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books). National Library of Medicine. - [EQUATOR Network](https://www.equator-network.org/). EQUATOR Network. - [Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices). Committee on Publication Ethics. - [NIH Grants and Funding](https://grants.nih.gov/). National Institutes of Health. - [ORCID for Researchers](https://info.orcid.org/researchers). ORCID. - [Data Management and Sharing Policy](https://sharing.nih.gov/data-management-and-sharing-policy). National Institutes of Health. - [NCBI Literature Resources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). National Center for Biotechnology Information. - [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). National Library of Medicine. > This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.