Research team: Includes at least two reviewers.
Timeframe: Same amount of time as a systematic review or longer -- 12+ months. Timeframe can be impacted by factors such as available resources, quantity and quality of the literature, and expertise of the reviewers.
Question: Answers broader and topic-focused questions beyond those relating to the effectiveness of an intervention or treatment. A scoping review can seek to answer multiple questions at once (see examples).
Research protocol: A research protocol is highly recommended. It will help clarify and define the objectives and detail the methods involved.
Search: Exhaustiveness of search can be determined by time or scope constraints. Reviewers' search should still be thorough and replicable. The search many utilize multiple structured searching strategies rather than just one. This will likely produce more results than a systematic review.
PRISMA Diagram: Reviewers are expected to utilize the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews extension to detail their search results.
Selection: Influenced by an inclusion/exclusion criteria. May require additional time for the screening process to accomodate the larger volume of results produced from the reviewers' broader questions.
Appraisal: A formal quality/critical assessment is not required although encouraged to ensure the validity and relevance of the retrieved literature. Risk of bias assessment is optional and not usually applicable for scoping reviews.
Synthesis: Typically tabular with some narrative commentary. Data extraction may include a charting table or form. A formal synthesis of findings from individual studies and a summary of findings is not required. Results may include any descriptive form (table, diagram, etc.,) that aligns with the scope and objectives of the review. The synthesis may incorporate a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis.
Analysis: Characterize quality and quality of literature, perhaps by study design or other key features. Attempts to specify a viable review.
