---
title: "10.1.2 What are scoping reviews?"
canonical: "https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/355862573/10.1.2%20What%20are%20scoping%20reviews%3F"
format: markdown
---
Before 2022, there was no formal definition for scoping reviews. After extensive discussion within the JBI Scoping Review Methodology group, the following definition was developed: Scoping reviews are a type of evidence synthesis that aims to systematically identify and map the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, field, concept, or issue, often irrespective of source (i.e., primary research, reviews, non-empirical evidence) within or across particular contexts. Scoping reviews can clarify key concepts/definitions in the literature and identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept, including those related to methodological research.  (Munn et al. 2022) This definition highlights the importance of considering scoping reviews as a form of evidence synthesis with their own distinct purpose when compared to other types of evidence syntheses. Scoping reviews are a type of evidence synthesis within the evidence ecosystem ‘Scoping review’ is sometimes used to describe a non-systematic, preliminary approach to preparing to undertake a review protocol (an activity we would rather call a scoping exercise or background work). These efforts should not be confused with the approach recommended within this guidance. Anecdotally, scoping reviews have been misunderstood at times to be an ‘easier’ or inferior form of systematic review. Our methodology group has noted confusion among authors and people attending scoping review training, who believe that scoping reviews do not need to be systematically conducted or reported, or that they are simpler to undertake compared to systematic reviews. Considering scoping reviews as a unique form of evidence synthesis highlights that they should be conducted and reported systematically with the same rigorous processes that would be applied to a systematic review. Both systematic reviews and scoping reviews have challenges in their conduct, and one cannot be viewed as easier than the other simply because they possess some different characteristics (Khalil et al. 2021, Munn et al. 2018). In fact, it could be argued that, in some cases, such as when the scoping review is broad and includes multiple sources of evidence (e.g. randomised trials, observational studies, case reports), more time and resources are required than for a systematic review with a specific and focused Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) involving tight eligibility criteria.