A scoping review serves the purpose of identifying the existing literature on a specific research question.

• They can also clarify concepts in the literature and define gaps in knowledge. Unlike systematic reviews, "...scoping reviews do not aim to produce a critically appraised and synthesised result/answer to a particular question, [they] rather aim to provide an overview or map of the evidence" (Munn et al., 2018).
• Scoping Reviews are nevertheless "systematic-like",  and require a rigorous approach. They often include a protocol; the searching is systematic and fairly exhaustive; and methods are documented thoroughly. They can be the precursor to a full systematic review.

If you're undertaking a Scoping Review in any discipline, the steps in this guide (with a few adjustments) will be useful.

1. Identify your answerable research question
   Pin down your research question, whether it’s for your entire project or a smaller section. Use search frameworks like PCC, CIMO, or SPIDER to help define your question.
2. Develop your protocol
   Although not always required, developing a protocol is recommended. A protocol is the detailed plan for your review, it pre-defines the objectives, methods, and reporting of the review, ensuring transparency. It should detail inclusion and exclusion criteria, relevant data, and how data will be extracted and presented.
3. Conduct systematic searches
   Work out a search strategy (including keywords and limitations), decide where to run your searches and be sure to document everything you do carefully and methodically.  
4. Select studies for inclusion (screening)
   Use your inclusion and exclusion criteria to screen articles. Common exclusion criteria may be the date range, the geographic location of studies, the type of study, or the language of publication.
   Some guidelines for Scoping Reviews recommend that more than one reviewer goes through the two stages of screening (title/abstract, then full-text screening) to reduce the risk of bias. Make sure you record the decisions you make.
5. Critically appraise articles
   Munn and his colleagues (2018) state, "Critical appraisal is not mandatory however reviewers may decide to assess and report the risk of bias in scoping reviews".
6. Extract and synthesise the data
   As the goal in a Scoping Review is to determine the range of evidence available on a topic, the data is not synthesised in the same way it is for a Systematic Review. Instead, charts, tables and other graphics typically map the results.

In the health sciences, there are fairly strict guidelines for Scoping Reviews which could be successfully adapted for other disciplines. See:

• Chapter 10 (Scoping Reviews) of the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis.
• PRISMA for Scoping Reviews, which includes a checklist.

It's a good idea to organise your literature using EndNote groups.

The PRISMA flow diagram is also useful to help you keep track of studies you've found, and how many of those you have included and excluded (with reasons) during the screening process.

Cacchione, P. Z. (2016). The evolving methodology of scoping reviews. Clinical Nursing Research, 25(2), 115-119. doi:10.1177/1054773816637493

Peterson, J., Pearce, P. F., Ferguson, L. A., & Langford, C. A. (2017). Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 29, 12-16. doi:10.1002/2327-6924.12380

Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. 

Peters, M. D., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., & Soares, C. B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International Journal of Evidence Based Healthcare, 13(3), 141-146. doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050