The Arksey and O’Malley Scoping Review Framework and Levac’s Refinements

The Arksey and O’Malley scoping review framework, published in 2005, is the methodological source from which every current scoping review approach — including the JBI nine-step framework and PRISMA-ScR reporting checklist — ultimately descends. Understanding the original framework’s five stages, the genuine gaps its authors and later methodologists identified, and the specific refinements Levac, Colquhoun and O’Brien added in 2010 helps a review team understand why current guidance looks the way it does, not just what to do at each step.

This page focuses on that methodological lineage — the conduct/process side of scoping review methodology. For a practical, step-by-step walkthrough of running a scoping review today, see CASRAI’s guide to conducting a scoping review (JBI/PRISMA-ScR). For the reporting checklist applied once a scoping review is complete, see the PRISMA-ScR dictionary entry — PRISMA-ScR is a reporting standard, not a conduct methodology, and answers a different question than this page does.

Why Arksey and O’Malley’s framework matters

Arksey, H. and O’Malley, L. published “Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework” in the International Journal of Social Research Methodology in 2005. At the time, researchers conducting what they called “scoping studies” had no shared, citable methodology to follow — reviews described as scoping exercises varied widely in rigor and structure. Arksey and O’Malley’s framework was the first attempt to set out a replicable process, built around a distinction that still defines the field: a scoping review maps the extent, range and nature of evidence on a topic, while a systematic review answers a narrower, typically effectiveness-focused question using pooled evidence and formal quality appraisal.

The five (plus one) original stages

Arksey and O’Malley set out five required stages, plus an optional sixth:

Stage 1 — Identifying the research question

The starting point is a broad research question that defines the scope of the review — deliberately broader than a systematic review’s tightly specified PICO question, since the purpose is to map a topic area rather than test a hypothesis.

Stage 2 — Identifying relevant studies

This stage covers developing a search strategy across relevant databases, reference lists and, where useful, existing organizations and networks in the field. Arksey and O’Malley described a comprehensive search as the goal but left the specific parameters of “comprehensive” — how many databases, what grey-literature sources, how far to extend hand-searching — largely to the reviewer’s judgment.

Stage 3 — Study selection

Selecting which identified studies to include, using post-hoc inclusion/exclusion criteria that the original paper describes as something the reviewer applies iteratively, becoming more familiar with the evidence as selection proceeds, rather than a single fixed screening pass.

Stage 4 — Charting the data

Extracting key information from each included source into a common analytical framework — the term “charting” is specific to scoping methodology and distinguishes this step from a systematic review’s more standardized data extraction, since a scoping review’s data are typically more heterogeneous in design and reporting format.

Stage 5 — Collating, summarizing and reporting the results

Presenting a narrative and/or tabular/visual account of the charted evidence, organized thematically or by study characteristics, and drawing out the general implications and gaps the mapping exercise surfaces — deliberately descriptive rather than a pooled quantitative synthesis.

Stage 6 (optional) — Consultation

Arksey and O’Malley proposed an optional consultation exercise with stakeholders — practitioners, policymakers, or people affected by the topic — as a way of adding value beyond what the literature search alone can surface, and validating the review’s findings and their relevance. They framed this as optional, not a required part of the methodology.

The methodological gaps the original framework left open

Arksey and O’Malley’s own paper acknowledged the framework was a first attempt rather than a finished methodology, and subsequent use exposed specific ambiguities that made the framework harder to apply consistently across teams:

• Vague guidance on search comprehensiveness. The framework called for a comprehensive search but did not specify what comprehensiveness actually requires in practice — how many databases constitute “enough,” how grey literature should be incorporated, or how to document the search so it is reproducible. Teams following the original framework in good faith could produce searches of very different rigor while both technically complying with the stage.
• No formal quality-appraisal step. Unlike a systematic review, the original framework did not build in any mechanism for assessing the quality or risk of bias of included sources — a deliberate design choice consistent with a scoping review’s descriptive purpose, but one that also left reviewers without guidance on whether, or how, to note methodological limitations in the sources they charted.
• Unclear handling of iterative refinement. The original paper described study selection and the research question itself as things a reviewer might revisit as familiarity with the literature grows, but did not specify how that iteration should actually work in a multi-person research team — when to revisit a decision, how to document a change, or how to keep the process reproducible if the criteria shift partway through.
• Thin detail on the analysis/reporting stage despite its scope. Stage 5 — collating, summarizing and reporting — covers the most analytically demanding part of the process, but the original framework offered comparatively little structure for how to actually perform thematic analysis or numerically summarize charted data.
• Ambiguity around the consultation stage. Because Stage 6 was optional and only loosely described, reviewers had little guidance on when it was worth doing, who to consult, or how to fold stakeholder input back into the review’s findings.

What Levac, Colquhoun and O’Brien (2010) added

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H. and O’Brien, K.K. published “Scoping studies: advancing the methodology” in Implementation Science in 2010, based on their team’s experience applying the Arksey and O’Malley framework across several scoping reviews. Rather than replacing the original five-stage structure, Levac et al. clarified and enhanced individual stages:

A more structured, team-based approach to defining the research question

Levac et al. recommended more tightly linking the review’s stated purpose to a clearly articulated research question — explicitly considering the concept, target population and outcomes of interest together, rather than treating “purpose” as separate from the formal question — and doing so as a deliberate, team-based step rather than an individual researcher’s judgment call.

An iterative team approach to study selection and data charting

This is the most concrete methodological addition. Levac et al. recommended that study selection and data charting each involve at least two reviewers working independently and then meeting to reconcile decisions — for study selection, that meant independent screening with team meetings at the start, midpoint and end of the process to resolve uncertainty and refine the criteria; for charting, it meant collectively developing the charting form up front, then having two reviewers independently chart the first several included studies before comparing results and adjusting the form, treating charting as a form that evolves rather than one fixed at the outset. This directly answered the original framework’s vagueness about how iterative refinement should actually work.

More structure for the analysis and reporting stage

Levac et al. proposed breaking Stage 5 into distinct components: a numerical summary of the charted evidence (counts and characteristics of included sources), a qualitative thematic analysis of the content, and an explicit step considering the implications of the findings for research, practice and policy — giving reviewers a concrete structure where the original framework offered comparatively little.

Clearer guidance on stakeholder consultation

Where Arksey and O’Malley left consultation optional and loosely defined, Levac et al. argued it should be treated as an essential, planned component of the methodology rather than an afterthought — recommending that reviewers establish a clear purpose for the consultation up front, use the review’s preliminary findings as the basis for the conversation, and specify in advance which stakeholders to involve and how their input would be collected and used.

How this fits with current scoping review guidance

The Joanna Briggs Institute’s current scoping review methodology formalizes both the original Arksey and O’Malley stages and many of Levac et al.’s refinements into a nine-step process, and PRISMA-ScR sets out how a completed scoping review should be reported. If you are actively planning or running a scoping review today, CASRAI’s step-by-step JBI/PRISMA-ScR guide walks through the current, practical version of this process, including a worked charting-table example. This page exists to explain the methodological reasoning behind that current guidance — why a team-based, iterative approach to selection and charting is now standard practice, and why consultation is treated as more than an optional add-on.

For the underlying definitional distinctions between a scoping review and adjacent review types, see the scoping review dictionary entry, the systematic review dictionary entry, and CASRAI’s literature review vs. systematic review vs. scoping review comparison. A scoping review should not be confused with a meta-analysis, which pools quantitative effect estimates — a synthesis method scoping reviews deliberately do not attempt.

Frequently asked questions

Is the Arksey and O’Malley framework still used, or has it been replaced?

It has not been replaced so much as absorbed and extended. The Joanna Briggs Institute’s current scoping review methodology, which most published scoping reviews now follow, explicitly builds on Arksey and O’Malley’s original stages plus Levac et al.’s refinements, rather than starting from a different structure. Citing the original 2005 paper alongside the 2010 Levac et al. refinement, and current JBI guidance, remains standard practice in a scoping review’s methods section.

Do I need to cite both Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and Levac et al. (2010)?

Most published scoping reviews cite both, since together they establish the methodology’s history and its current recommended practice. Citing Arksey and O’Malley alone, without acknowledging the refinements later methodologists made, is a common reviewer criticism of scoping review manuscripts that lean only on the original framework.

What is the single most practically important change Levac et al. made?

The move to an iterative, team-based approach for study selection and data charting — independent dual review with scheduled team meetings to reconcile decisions and refine criteria/forms — is the most concrete, actionable addition, and the one most directly reflected in how scoping reviews are conducted and reported today.

Does the Arksey and O’Malley framework include quality appraisal of included studies?

No. Neither the original 2005 framework nor Levac et al.’s 2010 refinements added a required quality-appraisal step — this remains a defining difference from a systematic review. PRISMA-ScR lists critical appraisal of individual sources as an optional, not required, reporting item, consistent with this design choice.