PRISMA-ScR (PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews)

PRISMA-ScR (PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews) is a dedicated 20-item reporting checklist, published by Tricco et al. in 2018, for authors writing up a scoping review. It is not a shorter or optional version of the core PRISMA 2020 checklist — it is a separate, purpose-built standard, because a scoping review asks a fundamentally different kind of question than a systematic review of intervention effects does. Something is PRISMA-ScR compliant when its reporting satisfies PRISMA-ScR’s own 20 essential items (plus, where used, its 2 optional items) rather than the 27-item core checklist; using the wrong checklist for the review type is the single most common compliance error in this area.

Why scoping reviews need a separate checklist

The core PRISMA checklist is written for systematic reviews that answer a focused effectiveness question — typically framed with PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) — and that report a bounded, appraised, often meta-analysed body of evidence. A scoping review has a different purpose: it maps the extent, range, and nature of evidence on a broader topic, often to identify gaps, clarify key concepts, or scope the feasibility of a future systematic review, without necessarily appraising risk of bias or pooling effect estimates. Because the underlying task differs, several core PRISMA items (formal risk-of-bias assessment, certainty-of-evidence rating, meta-analysis reporting) don’t map cleanly onto scoping review practice, and PRISMA-ScR replaces them with items suited to a broader, exploratory evidence-mapping exercise.

The PCC framework

Where systematic reviews structure their question with PICO, PRISMA-ScR is built around PCC — Population, Concept, Context:

• Population — the characteristics of the group(s) the review is examining (age, condition, role, or other defining traits).
• Concept — the core idea(s) being mapped: an intervention, phenomenon, practice, or outcome of interest, defined broadly enough to capture the full range of relevant evidence rather than a single effect.
• Context — the setting, geography, cultural factors, or other circumstances that bound the review’s scope.

PCC is not the only framework a scoping review can use to define its question, but it is the one PRISMA-ScR’s own items reference directly, and reviewers should expect editors and readers familiar with PRISMA-ScR to look for a PCC-structured (or clearly PCC-mappable) research question in the report.

What the checklist covers

PRISMA-ScR’s 20 essential items follow the same overall report structure as the core checklist — title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, funding — but with scoping-review-specific requirements, including:

• Reporting the review as following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews and/or the original Arksey and O’Malley (2005) framework it extended, where applicable.
• Presenting eligibility criteria in PCC terms rather than PICO.
• Describing a “charting” process for extracting and categorising data across included sources, rather than a formal risk-of-bias-weighted data extraction.
• Summarising results with a focus on mapping the breadth, distribution, and characteristics of the evidence — commonly with tables, charts, or a narrative summary — rather than pooled effect estimates.
• Two optional items covering critical appraisal of individual sources of evidence and the potential implications of that appraisal, included because some scoping reviews do incorporate a lighter-touch quality assessment even though it isn’t a required feature of the design.

The full checklist, with worked explanations for every item, is published in the primary source: Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. “PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation.” Annals of Internal Medicine. 2018;169(7):467-473. DOI 10.7326/M18-0850. It is also indexed, alongside every other PRISMA extension, at the EQUATOR Network.

The PRISMA-ScR flow diagram

PRISMA-ScR reuses the same overall logic as the standard PRISMA flow diagram — boxes tracking records identified, screened, excluded, and included, moving through Identification, Screening, and Included phases — but the terminology in the final box is adjusted for a scoping review’s broader scope. Where a systematic review’s diagram ends in “studies included,” a scoping review’s diagram more often ends in “sources of evidence included,” since a scoping review may incorporate study types, grey literature, and other materials that don’t fit the narrower category of “study.” As with the core PRISMA diagram, every exclusion at the full-text stage needs a stated reason; the diagram is a reporting requirement, not merely an illustrative figure, under PRISMA-ScR item 15.

When to use PRISMA-ScR instead of PRISMA 2020

Use PRISMA-ScR when the review’s actual purpose is to map the breadth of evidence on a topic, clarify definitions or concepts, identify evidence gaps, or scope the feasibility of a future systematic review — and the question is framed (or can be reframed) around PCC rather than a single, focused PICO comparison. Use the core PRISMA 2020 checklist instead when the review answers a focused effectiveness or association question, appraises risk of bias formally, and reports a bounded, comparable body of studies — the two are not interchangeable, and CASRAI’s guide to PRISMA and systematic review methodology covers the full family of PRISMA extensions and how they relate to the core checklist. For the upstream question of which review type to conduct in the first place, see CASRAI’s comparison of literature review vs. systematic review vs. scoping review.

Frequently asked questions

Is PRISMA-ScR the same as PRISMA 2020 with fewer items?

No. It is a separate checklist built around a different question-framing (PCC instead of PICO) and different reporting expectations for data extraction, appraisal, and synthesis, reflecting a scoping review’s broader, more exploratory purpose. It shares structure and some items with the core checklist but is not a trimmed-down version of it.

Does a scoping review need a registered protocol like a systematic review does?

PRISMA-ScR item 4 asks authors to indicate whether a protocol was registered and to provide its registration information if so, but unlike PRISMA-P for systematic review protocols, registration is not treated as a universal expectation for scoping reviews — practice and journal requirements vary, so check the target journal’s guidance directly.

Who developed PRISMA-ScR?

It was developed by a 24-member expert panel and two research leads (Andrea Tricco and colleagues), following methodology guidance published by the EQUATOR Network, and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2018.