Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
Evidence synthesis methodologies represent the pinnacle of the research evidence hierarchy. However, researchers, clinical investigators, and grant applicants frequently conflate systematic reviews with scoping reviews. While both require systematic, transparent, and reproducible search protocols, their underlying objectives, methodological frameworks (PRISMA-P / Cochrane vs. PRISMA-ScR / JBI), risk of bias appraisal requirements, and analytical syntheses differ fundamentally. This guide provides a comparative framework to assist research teams in selecting and publishing the appropriate evidence synthesis format.
Methodological Differentiation: Systematic vs. Scoping Review
| Dimension | Systematic Review | Scoping Review |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Research Objective | Answer a narrowly defined, specific clinical/empirical question (e.g., PICO: Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome). | Map the conceptual boundaries, volume, nature, and characteristics of an emerging or heterogeneous body of literature. |
| Protocol Preregistration | Mandatory PROSPERO or Open Science Framework (OSF) registration prior to title/abstract screening. | OSF, Open Science Framework, or JBI registry (PROSPERO explicitly rejects scoping review protocols). |
| Critical Appraisal & Risk of Bias | Mandatory formal assessment (e.g., Cochrane RoB 2, ROBINS-I, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, GRADE certainty). | Optional / Omitted (aims to map available evidence regardless of methodological quality). |
| Reporting Standard | PRISMA 2020 Statement (27-item checklist and 4-phase flow diagram). | PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews, 2018). |
| Data Synthesis Outcome | Quantitative statistical meta-analysis (forest plots) or structured narrative synthesis answering intervention effectiveness. | Descriptive mapping, thematic charting, identifying knowledge gaps, and clarifying operational definitions. |
