A scoping review maps the existing research on a topic by describing what has been studied, where gaps exist and what trends or patterns appear across the literature. It surveys the research landscape rather than testing a hypothesis or determining which intervention works best.

What Is A Scoping Review?

Think of a scoping review like being a tour guide on a bus. Your readers are the tourists, and your job is to describe the landscape of research to them.

You point out the tall mountain to the left: an area where there is a huge volume of research. You point out the gaping hole on the right: a gap where almost nothing has been researched. You also describe the general scenery, including trends and patterns that appear across different studies.

That is what a scoping reviewer does with a body of literature. You are not testing a hypothesis. You are not weighing evidence to reach a conclusion. You are surveying the terrain and reporting on what is there, what is missing and what shape the research is in.

When Should You Use A Scoping Review?

First, there needs to be enough research to review. If only two or three studies exist on your topic, a scoping review may not tell you much. You need a body of literature substantial enough to map.

This can seem contradictory because identifying gaps is part of scoping reviews. You can find scoping reviews with very few papers. However, if you are a student submitting a Masters dissertation or PhD, you have little to synthesise and limited ways to demonstrate the marking criteria.

Before proposing a scoping review, check whether the review is viable. A quick database search can help establish whether there are enough relevant papers for a meaningful review.

Second, consider heterogeneity. If studies use very different methods, definitions or populations, a systematic review can become difficult because you cannot easily compare them. A scoping review handles this variety better because it is not trying to synthesise a single answer. The variety itself can provide information about the extent of differences or confusion within the field.

What Should Your Scoping Review Question Ask?

Your review question is one of the most important considerations.

If you are asking what has been published or how something has been researched, that is scoping review territory. You are interested in mapping the existing research landscape.

If you are asking what the evidence actually shows works, that is a systematic review question rather than a scoping review question.

The distinction is between mapping the research and determining what the evidence demonstrates. A scoping review is designed to describe the extent and nature of existing research rather than provide a definitive answer about effectiveness.

What Can A Scoping Review Tell You?

A scoping review does three jobs particularly well.

First, it can identify where the field is ready for a systematic review and where it is not yet ready. Second, it can show what needs more research, helping guide other researchers on what to investigate next. Third, it can demarcate the current limits of the research, showing where the edge of existing knowledge currently sits.

The purpose is therefore broader than simply finding a research gap. You are mapping the field so that you can understand its extent, characteristics and boundaries.

This can provide a clearer picture of what has already been studied and where further research may be needed.

What Can A Scoping Review Not Tell You?

There is a hard limit to what a scoping review can tell you. It cannot tell you the best or most effective way to do something. It is not designed to judge or appraise the quality of the research it maps.

A scoping review can tell you how something has been researched. It cannot tell you how something should be done, or reliably tell you how something has actually been done in practice.

That distinction matters because scoping research is not the same as scoping practice. If you want to know what actually works in the real world, that requires empirical research rather than a scoping review of what has already been published about it.

If you are applying this distinction to your own methodology and want a second pair of eyes, you can find out more about one-to-one research support.