Nursing scoping review support helps students map broad or emerging evidence using a transparent question, protocol, search, screening process and charting framework. A scoping review is useful when the aim is to describe the extent, characteristics, concepts or gaps in a field rather than estimate one pooled effect.
The service can support planning, methods review, feedback or revision. It does not create fictional search histories, screening counts, data-charting entries or reviewer processes that did not occur.
What scoping-review support can cover
- Whether a scoping review is the correct review type.
- PCC question and eligibility-criteria development.
- Protocol structure and amendment tracking.
- Database, keyword and grey-literature search planning.
- Screening decision rules and audit trails.
- Data-charting forms.
- Evidence mapping and gap identification.
- PRISMA-ScR reporting checks.
- Final methodological and reference consistency.
Use a scoping review for the right purpose
Scoping reviews are particularly useful when the literature is broad, heterogeneous or conceptually unclear. They can map study designs, populations, interventions, outcomes, terminology, settings or research gaps and may help determine whether a narrower systematic review is feasible.
If the primary question asks whether one intervention is effective compared with another, a conventional systematic review may be more appropriate. The review type should follow the purpose rather than whichever method appears easier.
| Review purpose | Likely method |
|---|---|
| Map how a concept is defined or studied | Scoping review |
| Describe the range of interventions or evidence types | Scoping review |
| Identify evidence gaps in a developing field | Scoping review |
| Estimate comparative effectiveness for a focused question | Systematic review, depending on evidence and design |
| Integrate several evidence types to develop a broader understanding | Integrative review, where methodologically appropriate |
Related routes are available through our systematic review support and integrative review support.
Build the question with PCC
JBI recommends Population, Concept and Context (PCC) as a framework for scoping-review questions and inclusion criteria. The question should make the review focus clear enough to guide eligibility and searching without narrowing the evidence so far that mapping becomes impossible.
For example, “technology in nursing education” is too broad. A more useful question might ask what applications and learning outcomes have been reported for virtual simulation among undergraduate nursing students in pre-registration education.
The title, question and eligibility criteria should use the same core concepts. This alignment is one of the strongest protections against scope drift.
Develop an a priori protocol
JBI guidance recommends developing a protocol before undertaking the review. It should define the objective, question, inclusion criteria, information sources, search approach, selection process, charting and planned presentation.
Scoping reviews can be iterative, but changes should be documented and justified. Do not silently revise criteria after seeing which studies are easiest to include.
If a university expects registration or public posting, follow its approved route. Do not claim that a protocol was registered or published when it was not.
Design a search that is broad but manageable
Database selection depends on the topic. CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus or discipline-specific databases may be relevant. Grey literature may also matter for policy, education, implementation or service questions.
Separate the question into searchable concepts, then identify synonyms, abbreviations and controlled vocabulary. Nursing terminology varies across countries and databases, so terms such as “district nurse,” “home health nurse,” “public health nurse” and “community nurse” should not be treated as automatically equivalent.
Record the database and platform, search date, complete strategy, limits and supplementary methods. Save exports before deduplication where possible.
For complex searches, an academic librarian or information specialist can improve retrieval and documentation.
Make screening decisions reproducible
Eligibility criteria should be operational enough for a reviewer to decide whether a record belongs in the review. Define eligible populations, concepts, contexts, evidence types, dates, languages and publication formats where relevant.
Pilot the criteria on a varied set of records before full screening. Record decisions for borderline cases and use one clear exclusion reason at full-text stage where possible.
If only one student reviewer is feasible, report that accurately and discuss the limitation rather than implying independent duplicate screening.
Chart data that answer the question
Data charting is structured extraction from the included evidence. Common fields include author, year, country, design, population, context, concept characteristics and key findings, but the exact form should follow the review objective.
For a review of nurse-led digital follow-up, useful fields may include the technology, nursing role, patient group, frequency, implementation setting, outcomes and reported barriers. Extracting every statistic from every source may add work without improving the evidence map.
Pilot the charting form on different study types and record any later changes.
Move beyond a catalogue of studies
A scoping review should show the shape of the evidence. Descriptive mapping may report publication years, countries, settings, study designs, populations or outcome categories. Tables and figures can make these patterns visible.
The synthesis should then explain what the pattern means and where interpretation is limited. If almost all evidence comes from high-income acute-care settings, that concentration is itself an important finding.
Do not convert a scoping review into an effectiveness claim when the method was not designed to assess comparative effects or risk of bias in that way.
Identify specific evidence gaps
“More research is needed” is rarely useful. State which population, setting, concept, outcome or design is underrepresented and why that gap matters to nursing practice or future research.
A gap may also reflect inconsistent terminology or measurement rather than a complete absence of research. Distinguish those problems.
Use PRISMA-ScR for transparent reporting
PRISMA-ScR remains the official PRISMA extension for reporting scoping reviews. The current checklist contains 20 essential items and two optional items. PRISMA also notes that an update to the scoping-review extension is under development.
Use the current published PRISMA-ScR checklist unless your institution specifies another requirement. It is a reporting guideline, not a complete conduct manual, so it should be used alongside a methodology such as current JBI guidance.
The flow diagram should reconcile with the actual screening records. Never reconstruct attractive numbers that do not match the saved search and selection process.
Decide whether critical appraisal is needed
Critical appraisal is not mandatory for every scoping review. The decision depends on the objective, brief and intended conclusions.
If appraisal is included, use tools appropriate to the evidence types and explain how the findings affect interpretation. If appraisal is omitted, state the rationale and the limitation this creates.
Common scoping-review problems
- The question is too broad to support consistent screening.
- PCC concepts change between the question and eligibility criteria.
- The search is broad but poorly documented.
- Screening decisions rely on unstated rules.
- The charting form collects data unrelated to the objective.
- The results become a study-by-study catalogue.
- PRISMA-ScR is treated as a substitute for methodology.
- The review claims intervention effectiveness without the appropriate design and appraisal.
- Search counts or reviewer processes are reconstructed inaccurately.
What to send
- Assessment brief and marking rubric.
- Review title, objective and question.
- Protocol or methods draft.
- Search histories and database exports where available.
- Screening log and exclusion reasons.
- Charting form or evidence table.
- Current draft and supervisor feedback.
- Referencing requirements and deadline.
Academic integrity and responsible support
Support can explain the scoping-review method, critique searches, review eligibility criteria, improve charting or edit a draft. Students remain responsible for the review decisions and for accurately reporting what was done.
Do not invent references, screening decisions, extracted findings, appraisal results or second reviewers. If records are missing, identify the documentation gap honestly.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between a scoping review and a systematic review?
A scoping review usually maps the breadth, characteristics and gaps of a field. A systematic review commonly addresses a narrower question and may evaluate effects or synthesise findings in greater depth.
Does every scoping review need PRISMA-ScR?
PRISMA-ScR is the recognised reporting extension for scoping reviews and is widely useful. Follow the exact reporting requirements in your university brief.
Do I need two reviewers?
Methodological guidance may recommend duplicate processes, but student projects can face constraints. Report the approved process accurately and state limitations rather than implying reviewers who were not involved.
Can grey literature be included?
Yes where it serves the question. Define eligible grey-literature types and document how they are searched and selected.
Request scoping review support
Send the brief, PCC question, search progress and current draft through the order page. If you are still deciding whether a scoping, systematic or integrative review fits the project, use the contact page.
References and methods resources
- Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2024). Scoping reviews. In JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI Manual.
- Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., et al. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. PRISMA-ScR.