Direct comparison
Scoping Review Vs Rapid Review: Key Differences & Comparison | CASRAI
Scoping reviews and rapid reviews are both alternatives to the full systematic review, but they serve different purposes. Scoping reviews map the breadth of a literature; rapid reviews accelerate the systematic review process for time-sensitive decisions, accepting some methodological shortcuts.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | Scoping review | Rapid review |
|---|---|---|
| Primary purpose | Map the breadth and nature of existing literature; clarify concepts, definitions, and types of evidence; identify research gaps | Answer a focused question about effectiveness, safety, or a defined topic under time constraints for policy or clinical decision-making |
| Research question type | Broad and exploratory: "What evidence exists on X?", "How has X been defined?", "What types of study have examined X?" | Focused and answerable: "What is the effect of intervention X on outcome Y in population Z?" — the same PICO-structured questions as a full systematic review |
| Quality appraisal of studies | Not typically conducted; inclusion of a study is independent of its methodological quality, which distinguishes scoping from systematic reviews | Usually included but streamlined; may use a simplified appraisal tool or focus on risk-of-bias assessment for the most critical studies only |
| Search comprehensiveness | Aims to be comprehensive across databases, grey literature, and hand-searching; breadth of coverage reflects the mapping purpose | Searches are typically restricted (fewer databases, defined date limits, English-language only) to save time; restrictions should be documented and their impact discussed |
| Protocol registration | PROSPERO does not accept scoping reviews; use OSF (Open Science Framework) and cite the DOI-assigned registration in the paper | PROSPERO accepts rapid reviews with health-related outcomes; registration is recommended where time allows |
| Reporting guideline | PRISMA-ScR (PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews, Tricco et al. 2018, Annals of Internal Medicine); 22 items | PRISMA 2020 is the applicable checklist; the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group guidance specifies how to document methodological shortcuts |
| Time required | Variable; typically several months for a rigorous scoping review with comprehensive searching and charting | Designed to be completed in weeks to a few months; the defining feature is compression of the systematic review process |
| Methodological guidance | JBI Manual (Peters et al. 2020); Arksey & O'Malley (2005) framework; Levac et al. (2010) extension | Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group (published 2020, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology); WHO guidance on rapid reviews for health policy |
Common questions
FAQ
Can a rapid review replace a systematic review?+
A rapid review can inform decisions when a full systematic review is not feasible, but it cannot simply replace one. The methodological shortcuts that make rapid reviews fast — restricted search, single screener, simplified appraisal — introduce uncertainty. Cochrane and WHO guidance both emphasise that rapid review conclusions should acknowledge these limitations explicitly, and that a full systematic review should follow where the decision is important enough to justify the resource investment.
Is a scoping review a type of systematic review?+
A scoping review follows a systematic process (structured searching, explicit inclusion criteria, reproducible charting), but it is not a systematic review in the technical sense: it does not conduct critical appraisal, does not synthesise effect estimates, and cannot support clinical guideline recommendations. PROSPERO, the registry for systematic reviews, does not accept scoping reviews, reflecting this distinction.
When would you choose a scoping review over a rapid review?+
Choose a scoping review when the purpose is conceptual — mapping what evidence exists, clarifying definitions, or identifying gaps — especially when the literature is heterogeneous in study design, population, or outcomes. Choose a rapid review when a policy or clinical decision requires an accelerated effect estimate on a focused question. The two are not interchangeable.
Going deeper
