How to Write a Scoping Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Medical Students 

Medicine is by its very nature a broad field. It is then understandable that novice researchers in the field often start their research journeys without the refined focus of a research question. Many medical students end up with a large body of literature that can’t be synthesized or published. This document outlines the basics of scoping reviews for medical students/IMGs to allow them to synthesize literature and produce a publishable body of work.

What is a Scoping Review

A scoping review looks at the body of research in a field. It answers the question: what research is being conducted, how is the research being conducted and what is missing.

Methods of a scoping review are systematic. You define your own eligibility criteria, and then search multiple sources. Finally, you screen records and collect data using a predefined form.

If you already have a focused question and want to synthesize evidence on it rather than map it, systematic review versus narrative review covers when each one fits and what each requires.

What is the Purpose of a Scoping Review?

Scoping reviews have the purpose of:

• Figuring out the extent of the body of evidence available on a particular topic.
•  Understanding how a particular concept is defined and researched.
•  Recognizing the gaps in evidence and research.
• Determining if a topic is ripe for a more focused systematic review.
•  A scoping review is a good choice when your research topic is large and unwieldy.
• Different studies on it use various designs.
• The focus is on the data, not on a statistical test.

When Should You Conduct a Scoping Review?

A scoping review is a good choice when your research topic is large and unwieldy.

• Different studies on it use various designs.
• The focus is on the data, not on a statistical test.

“How has simulation training been studied in nephrology teaching?” lends itself to a scoping review. “Does drug A lower blood pressure more than drug B in patients with CKD?” requires a systematic review.

What that focused question looks like when properly framed, and how PICO differs from PCC, is covered in the PICO framework for research questions.

Scoping Review vs. Systematic Review

Both require a systematic search and review of the literature. The main difference is the type of question. A scoping review seeks to present and summarize broad bodies of research. A systematic review seeks to present and summarize research regarding a specific, focused question.

Feature	Scoping review	Systematic review
Purpose	Review the extent of research on a topic	Synthesize research on a specific question
Research question	Broad	Focused
Evidence synthesis	Thematic	Narrative, quantitative or meta-analytic
Evaluation of research	Depends on the purpose of the review	Essential when evaluating certainty and/or effects
Reporting	PRISMA-ScR	PRISMA 2020 or extension

A scoping review and a systematic review both require an in-depth understanding and the report of thorough methods.

Which Scoping Review Methodology Should You Follow?

Most authors use the JBI methodology to conduct the review and PRISMA-ScR to report it.

JBI Scoping Review Methodology

The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis provides an in-depth chapter on scoping review methodology which describes each step in detail, from protocol development to the presentation of results. Use the most updated edition, as the chapter is revised regularly by JBI.

Arksey and O’Malley Framework

According to Arksey and O’Malley (2005), there are five steps:

1. Identify the research question.

2. Identify relevant studies.

3. Select studies.

4. Chart the data.

5. Collate, summarize, and report results.

They also suggested an optional sixth step, which is to consult the stakeholders.

 Levac et al. Framework

Levac, Colquhoun, and O’Brien (2010) asked their authors to:

1. Link their purpose to their research question.

2. Select studies as a team and revisit their selection decisions as they proceed.

3.  Interpret the results in the context of research and practice instead of just reporting results.

What is the Role of PRISMA-ScR?

PRISMA-ScR describes what to report in scoping reviews and can therefore be used alongside JBI. The checklist has 20 essential elements and two optional elements.

Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scoping Review 

Step 1: Plan the Review

Involve your stakeholders early. First, adopt a Population-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) framework.

A step-by-step process for writing a scoping review is as follows:

• – Identify necessary studies.
• Review the literature to determine what already exists for your topic.
• Understand the evidence gap.
•  Create a flowchart and/or use other tools to visually represent what has been published.
•  Review journal articles.
•  Examine existing scoping reviews and protocols.
• Note any evidence gaps.

Write out an example of an evidence-based scoping review protocol. It includes purpose, history, study design, rationale, research question, and review methods.

Reach out to stakeholders. Discuss purpose, rationale, and research questions. Present the planned study design and methods to your stakeholders.

Create a flow diagram. Indicate what studies you are including. Show the research question. Add a clear description of the methods used.

Refined question: How is generative AI being used by undergraduate medical students? What is reported regarding the benefits and the risks?

Now you know whom to include (exclude residents) and what to chart.

Step 2: Register or Publicly Share the Protocol

Usually, people use OSF. PROSPERO does not accept scoping reviews. PROSPERO is where systematic reviews register. How to register a systematic review on PROSPERO covers that process and explains why scoping reviews are out of scope for the register.

• Not all journals require registration, but reviewers notice it.
• Log all amendments, giving a reason and a date for each.
• OSF registration provides a public, time-stamped record. It is not a peer review.

Step 3: Develop a Comprehensive Literature Search Strategy

JBI suggests three steps:

1. Conduct a preliminary, limited search in two databases, making note of keywords and index terms in related articles.

2. Build a complete search using those terms in each database.

3. Review the reference lists of the included articles.

You can ask your health sciences librarian for help, if you have one.

Building the full string for each database takes more care than most first reviews expect. Using PubMed effectively for medical research covers MeSH terms, Boolean operators and field tags, the same techniques the example search string uses.

Step 4: Remove Duplicates and Screen Studies

JBI suggests using two independent reviewers. If you are using two reviewers, you may note reasons for disagreement. Record a reason for exclusion for each citing a reason for full-text exclusion.

Step 5: Chart the Data from Included Sources

Pull the relevant data from the sources you have into a structured format (i.e. a spreadsheet). It will likely be missing a column or two.

For researchers already collecting data in a clinical setting, REDCap can replace a spreadsheet for charting and keeps the data structured for export from the start.

Step 6: Summarize and Present the Evidence

If your results are descriptive, you might:

• Count sources by year, design, or population.
• Create a table of study characteristics.
• Create an evidence map.
• Group findings by themes.

If a table does not address a part of your research question, eliminate it.

Step 7: Identify Research Gaps and Write the Manuscript

Gaps should come from your data. If 18 of 24 sources were surveys from three countries, for example, that’s a gap you can defend.

Explain in the discussion what the map shows and where your review was inadequate. Structure the paper in the style of PRISMA-ScR.

PRISMA-ScR is an extension of the main PRISMA statement. The PRISMA 2020 checklist explained covers the parent checklist, including the flow diagram your scoping review will adapt.

How to Write a Scoping Review Research Question Using PCC

PCC is an acronym for Population, Concept, and Context.

– Population is the focus of the review.

– Concept is the idea or subject you want to map.

– Context is the setting (e.g. country, health system, or level of training).

PCC element	Example
Population	Allied health students
Concept	Perinatal care
Context	Tertiary level

Example research question:

“What is the evidence regarding the perinatal care skills of allied health students at the tertiary level?”

PCC helps formulate a broad research question. It also guides the identification of criteria, search terms, and charting fields. Context can also help select the appropriate databases; for example, using an education topic means adding ERIC to PubMed. While adapting PCC, explain your choices in the protocol.

 How to Design a Literature Search Strategy for a Scoping Review

 Which Databases Should You Search?

• PubMed/MEDLINE is the main database for medical subjects.
•  Embase for European journals and pharmacology, and for conference abstracts.
•  Scopus and Web of Science for citation and broad searching.
• CINAHL for nursing and allied health.
• ERIC for education.
• PsycINFO for mental health and behavior.
• Grey Literature: Google Scholar, trial registries, government websites.

Justify each source in your protocol based on your question and access.

 Boolean Operators And Keywords:

– OR broadens with synonyms.

– AND narrows with different concepts.

– NOT removes terms. Use with caution, as it may remove pertinent papers.

– ” ” retrieves an exact phrase.

– * pick up variations of a word.

– Subject headings (e.g. Emtree, MeSH) catch papers regardless of terminology used by authors.

Example Search String

  Refine and test the following example search string.

  (  “Medical Students”[MeSH Terms]

 OR “medical student*”[Title/Abstract])

  AND  (  “Artificial Intelligence”[MeSH Terms]

  OR “artificial intelligence”[Title/Abstract]

  OR “AI literacy”[Title/Abstract]  )

Adapt this for other databases and report the final search with dates.

How To Screen Studies And Apply Eligibility Criteria

•  Import results to Zotero, Rayyan or Covidence and remove duplicates. Spot-check by hand.
• Which one to use and why the choice matters is covered in Rayyan versus Covidence, including how blind mode works, what each plan covers, and where the two tools genuinely differ.
• Screen with a second reviewer. If working alone, have a colleague check a sample.
• Test your criteria on a small batch of papers first.
• Settle conflicts with a third reviewer or by discussion.
•  Keep counts for every stage.

Title/Abstract Screening vs. Full-Text Screening 

During title/abstract screening, if you’re not sure whether to include the paper, include it. For full-text screening, evaluate the paper against all the eligibility criteria.

How to Chart Data in a Scoping Review

You’ll want to chart data to answer your research question and pool your sources.

What Information Should Your Data Charting Table Include?

You’ll need a data charting table. This table will capture enough detail about your sources so that you can identify them.

You’ll also map the context so that it provides relevant information for people reading the review.

You’ll describe the purpose, evidence, population, and sample so that it helps readers understand the design.

It’s crucial to pool related data, but to do this, you will need to make the definition of key concepts in sources comparable.

Because you won’t be able to incorporate all of your data in your review, you need to chart the findings to help you answer your question, and then capture key findings.

 Edit as necessary to match your question. A made-up sample is shown below to illustrate the concept.

Field	Illustrative entry (fictional study)
Author and year	Khan et al., 2024
Country	Pakistan
Design	Cross-sectional online survey
Population	412 undergraduate medical students
AI tool	ChatGPT
Key findings	Summary of notes, practice questions
Limitations	Single institution

How to Synthesize Results From Scoping Reviews

You synthesize, not evaluate evidence. Write “one study reported increased retention,” not “AI improves retention.”

Common ways to present results

• Year- or country-focused numerical summaries.
• Characteristics of studies summarized in tables.
• Research distribution illustrated in charts.
• Key themes in narrative summaries.
• Identification of unexplored populations or areas in tables.

Identifying Knowledge Gaps

Name the kind of gap you have found.

• Low number of studies.
• Unexplored population, e.g. students in low-income countries.
• Measured outcomes are rare.
•  High degree of variability in definitions, methods and criteria, making comparison of studies difficult.

The checklist consists of items such as title, rationale, objectives, eligibility criteria, sources, search, selection, charting, results, limitations, and funding. Go through it and write the page number of each item. Most journals want it with your manuscript submission. It can be downloaded from the PRISMA-ScR page and the EQUATOR Network and cited as Tricco et al., 2018.

What does the PRISMA-ScR flow diagram show?

It shows a record’s journey from search to inclusion. Many authors base their flow diagrams on the PRISMA 2020 template. An example is provided below.

It is important to make sure each step in the flow diagram is aligned.

Writing Each Part of a Scoping Review

Manuscript section	What to include
Title and abstract	Review type, question, methods, key findings
Introduction	Background, rationale, objectives
Methods	Framework, protocol, eligibility, sources, search, screening, charting, synthesis
Results	Selection flow, included-source characteristics, mapped findings
Discussion	Interpretation, evidence gaps, implications, limitations
Conclusion	What the evidence map establishes and what remains unknown
References and supplements	Cited sources, complete search strategies, supporting materials

Be sure to include “scoping review” in the title and explain any changes from the protocol. Read the journal’s instructions for authors. PRISMA-ScR is just a minimum requirement.

Other Common Mistakes When Writing a Scoping Review

•  Unclear and vague question: use PCC to develop question and test it with a pilot search.
• Screening criteria not finalized and piloted: pilot the criteria first.
•  No reason for selecting a particular database: search multiple suitable databases.
•  Search nobody can repeat: include every string with date used in the search.
• Unexplained changes to screening criteria: keep a record of every amendment.
• Note-taking in place of charting: use a piloted form to chart data.
• Pooling data in map and treating it like a meta-analysis: describe the data.
• Gaps in evidence without anything behind it: explain results with evidence.
• Conclusions beyond what the data supports: don’t overreach.

The broader set of mistakes that cost IMGs their first projects, including how to frame a publishable research question from scratch, is covered in research mistakes IMGs make and how to avoid them.

Scoping Review Protocol Template and Useful Research Tools

Paste your response to the following in the order listed before reviewing a protocol:

1. Proposed title and rationale.

2. Review objective and PCC question.

3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

4. Information sources and search strategy.

5. Study selection and conflict resolution.

6. Data charting fields and piloting.

7. Planned analysis and evidence presentation.

8. Protocol registration and amendment documentation.

9. Reporting guidelines and dissemination plan.

Useful Research Tools for Medical Students and IMGs

– Zotero: Free, easy to use, and precise reference management system.

– Rayyan: Fast and free screening tool that has a ‘blind’ mode for two reviewers.

– Excel/Google Sheets: Great for data charting forms.

– OSF: Store and register research protocols for free.

Methodological decisions are still yours, and these tools save time.

 Frequently Asked Questions about Scoping Reviews

Q1. What is a scoping review in medical research?

A scoping review describes what has been studied on a topic, how concepts are defined, and what gaps are present in the literature. It does not evaluate the efficacy of an intervention.

Q2. How do you do a scoping review in 7 steps?

1. Choose your topic.

2. Build your PCC question.

3. Establish your inclusion/exclusion criteria.

4. Search, and register your protocol.

5. Screen, chart data, and summarize.

6. Identify gaps and report results using the PRISMA-ScR.

Q3. How is a scoping review different from a systematic review?

A scoping review describes the body of evidence, where a systematic review focuses on a particular research question and may incorporate meta-analysis.

Q4. What is the PCC framework in a scoping review?

It creates criteria and guides the search and charting process.

Q5. Is PRISMA-ScR a methodology or a reporting guideline?

Reporting guideline. To conduct the review, use JBI or the Arksey and O’Malley Framework as refined by Levac and colleagues.

Q6. Is it necessary to register a scoping review protocol?

Not mandatory, but recommended. Use OSF, and check your target journal.

Q7. Can a medical student or IMG conduct a scoping review?

Yes.

 Q8. How many databases should a scoping review include?

There is no limit. Two to three major health databases, and subject databases or grey literature if appropriate.

 Q9. Is critical appraisal required in a scoping review?

Not usually required. PRISMA-ScR states it’s optional. If you don’t do it, say why in your limitations.

Q10. How do you identify research gaps in a scoping review?

When analyzing your data, look for:

 – Topics that seem to be thin

 – Missing populations

 – Outcomes that are rarely measured

Final Checklist Before Submitting Your Scoping Review

• Research question stated in PCC terms.
• Protocol registered, with amendments logged.
• Full search reported for each database, with dates.
• Flow diagram numbers add up.
• Charting form piloted and described.
• Results answer every part of the question.
• PRISMA-ScR checklist filled in with page numbers.
• Limitations stated honestly.
• References checked.
• Journal’s author instructions followed.

Want to go further? The American Academy of Research and Academics (AARA) has more guides on systematic reviews, PRISMA, and meta-analysis.

Disclaimer:

Articles published by American Academy of Research & Academics are prepared by our team using information from direct experience, publicly available resources, and educational references. AI tools may be used to assist with drafting, proofreading, and formatting; however, all content undergoes review and approval before publication.
The information provided is intended for educational purposes only. Requirements, policies, and processes may change over time. Readers should consult official sources for the most current information.