Scoping review vs systematic review: what's the difference, and which should you choose?

The difference between a scoping review and a systematic review comes down to purpose. A scoping review maps what research exists on a topic, while a systematic review answers a specific question and appraises the studies it includes so you can draw conclusions from them. Both use systematic, transparent methods, including a protocol and a documented search.

In this guide, you'll learn what each review type is for, how they differ point by point, where meta-analysis fits, and how to decide which one suits your research question. You'll follow one topic throughout, mindfulness programs for university students, to see how changing the question changes the review.

If you're planning the wider process too, see the complete guide to doing a literature review.

What is a scoping review?

A scoping review is a type of evidence synthesis that systematically maps the research on a topic, identifying key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps. It suits broader questions than a systematic review typically asks [1].

Munn and colleagues describe six common reasons to conduct one [2]:

• To identify the types of evidence available in a field
• To clarify key concepts or definitions in the literature
• To examine how research on a topic is conducted
• To identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept
• To inform a later systematic review
• To identify and analyze knowledge gaps

JBI, whose scoping review guidance is widely used, recommends framing a scoping review question with PCC: Population, Concept, and Context. You don't need to name specific interventions or outcomes, although you can if they help. A scoping review can also include any type of source, from primary studies and reviews to policy documents and websites.

What is a systematic review?

A systematic review collects all the empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question. It uses explicit, systematic methods chosen to minimize bias, and it accounts for bias in the studies it includes [3].

The question framework depends on the kind of question you're asking. PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) suits questions about whether something works. Other questions often get forced into PICO when a different framework would fit better, such as PICo for qualitative questions or PEO for questions about exposure and risk [4].

A systematic review can include a meta-analysis, but it doesn't have to [5]. For the full process, see what is a systematic review.

Example: scoping vs systematic review questions for the same topic

Say you're interested in mindfulness programs for university students. The topic alone doesn't tell you which review to do. Your question does.

A scoping review question

"What's known about mindfulness programs for university students, including the formats used, the outcomes measured, and the settings where they've been studied?"

• Population: university students
• Concept: mindfulness programs, their formats, and the outcomes researchers measure
• Context: higher education settings

This review would chart each included source and summarize what it found descriptively. For example, you might count which program formats and outcomes appear most often and show where evidence is thin. You'd end up with a map of the field, not a verdict on whether the programs work.

A systematic review question

"Do mindfulness programs reduce perceived stress in university students, compared with no program?"

• Population: university students
• Intervention: mindfulness programs
• Comparator: no program
• Outcome: perceived stress

This review would appraise each included study and synthesize the findings to answer the question. If the included studies were similar enough in their participants, programs, comparisons, and stress outcomes, it could also combine their results in a meta-analysis [6].

The topic stayed the same. What changed is whether you want to describe the research or use it to answer a question.

Scoping review vs systematic review: key differences

The two review types share a systematic approach but differ at almost every step, from the question you ask to what you produce.

Sources: [1], [2], [3], [7]–[9]. See the References section below for full source details.

Two rows need a word of context:

• Critical appraisal. PRISMA-ScR treats appraisal as an optional item. It falls outside standard scoping review methods, but you can include it when it's relevant to your objectives [7].
• Reporting. PRISMA-ScR has 20 essential items and 2 optional ones. PRISMA 2020 has a 27-item checklist. It was designed mainly for reviews of health interventions, but its items also apply to reviews of social or educational interventions [8].

One more point follows from the table: a scoping review isn't a shortcut. Guidance on scoping reviews specifically warns against choosing one to avoid critical appraisal, to speed up the process, or to skip the work of writing a specific question. If your aim is to answer a question or inform practice, a scoping review isn't a substitute for a systematic review. Scoping reviews still call for a protocol, a documented search, and at least two reviewers for screening and data extraction.

Scoping review vs systematic review vs meta-analysis

A meta-analysis isn't a third type of review. It's a statistical method for combining the results of individual studies into an overall estimate, and it's used within some systematic reviews. Not every systematic review contains one.

Scoping reviews usually stop at descriptive analysis, such as counting how often concepts, populations, or study locations appear. JBI guidance says the kind of data a scoping review collects doesn't lend itself to meta-analysis, and that it's hard to picture a case where one would need it.

In the mindfulness example, only the systematic review could lead to a meta-analysis. Even then, Cochrane advises combining studies only when their participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes are similar enough to give a meaningful answer.

How to choose between a scoping review and a systematic review

The most important consideration is what you want your review to do. Work through these four questions in order.

1. Do you want to map the research or answer a question with it? If you want to see what's been studied, how, and where the gaps are, a scoping review fits. If you want an answer that can inform practice or policy, lean toward a systematic review.
2. What kind of question are you asking? Questions about whether a practice works, or whether it's feasible or appropriate, point toward a systematic review. Questions about what exists, how a topic has been studied, or how a concept is defined point toward a scoping review, even when they're narrowly worded. JBI's own example of a scoping review question asks which quality-of-life questionnaires exist for one specific group of pediatric patients.
3. Do you need to judge the strength of the evidence? Systematic reviews appraise the studies they include, which is what lets them offer guidance. Because scoping reviews generally skip appraisal, any implications they draw for practice are more limited.
4. Are you unsure whether enough relevant studies exist? A scoping review can come first. It can help you confirm your inclusion criteria and check that a later systematic review's question can be answered. That's one of its purposes, not its default: scoping reviews are useful in their own right.

Before you commit, check what your program, supervisor, or target journal expects.

Next steps after choosing your review type

Once you've chosen, the first steps look similar for both review types.

• Write a protocol and choose your reporting guideline. Set out your question, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and how you'll extract and present data, so your methods are defined in advance. Then follow PRISMA-ScR for a scoping review or PRISMA 2020 for a systematic review [7,8].
• Register or share your protocol. Systematic reviews with a health-related outcome may be eligible for PROSPERO, so check its current eligibility criteria before registering. For a scoping review, JBI suggests a platform such as OSF or Figshare.
• Plan your search. Database searching is usually central to both review types, but neither stops there. Cochrane requires checking the reference lists of included studies for its systematic reviews and recommends considering citation searching [10]. JBI asks scoping reviews to search as comprehensively as resources allow, including unpublished (gray) literature. If you add citation searching, report it: PRISMA 2020 asks you to name the platform you used and when you ran it [11].

Citation discovery fits into that last step. In ResearchRabbit, you start from seed papers you already know are relevant, such as a key study from your database search or an existing review on your topic. One or two strong, well-cited seed papers are usually enough to begin. References shows the papers your seeds cite, Citations shows the papers that cite them, and Similar finds papers connected to your seeds, ranking highest those most often cited alongside them. Because ResearchRabbit connects papers mainly through citations and shared authors rather than keyword matching, it can surface related papers your search terms might not match.

For a systematic review, use it alongside your database searches, not instead of them. For more, see search vs. discovery in literature reviews and how to search in ResearchRabbit.

Key takeaway

If you're still unsure, write your question both ways, as in the mindfulness example, and ask which answer you actually need: a picture of what's been studied, or a judgment about what works. That need, more than how narrowly your question is worded, tells you which review to plan.

FAQ

Is a scoping review a type of systematic review?

Usually not, although you'll see both uses. JBI now uses "scoping review" rather than "systematic scoping review," while stressing that all evidence synthesis should be carried out systematically. One published typology of systematic reviews doesn't list scoping reviews among its types either.

What's the difference between a scoping review and a literature review?

A traditional literature review summarizes and interprets research on a topic, and it often relies on the author's judgment about what to include. A scoping review follows a protocol, searches systematically, aims to be transparent and reproducible, involves more than one reviewer, and extracts data in a structured way. For other options, see the guide to types of literature review.

Is a systematic review qualitative or quantitative?

It can be either. Some systematic reviews pool numerical results in a meta-analysis, while others synthesize qualitative evidence about people's experiences. The question you ask decides which kind of evidence the review needs.

References

[1] Peters et al. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews.

[2] Munn et al. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach.

[3] Cochrane. Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 1.

[4] Munn et al. (2018). What kind of systematic review should I conduct?

[5] Cochrane. About Cochrane Reviews.

[6] Cochrane. Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 10.

[7] Tricco et al. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation.

[8] Page et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

[9] JBI. Development of a scoping review protocol.

[10] Cochrane. Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 4.

[11] EQUATOR Network. PRISMA: Information sources.

‍

‍