Scoping Review Protocol and Report Template (PRISMA-ScR)

Scoping Review Protocol and Report: [Review title]

Protocol and report template for a scoping review: a review that maps the extent, range and nature of the evidence on a topic, identifies key concepts and gaps, and does not usually pool effect estimates. The report sections follow the 22 items of the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR, Tricco et al., Ann Intern Med 2018;169(7):467-473; 20 essential and 2 optional items); item numbers appear in square brackets, for example [9]. The protocol sections follow the topics of JBI scoping review methodology (JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, 2024 edition, chapter 10) and the JBI protocol reporting items (Peters et al., JBI Evid Synth 2022;20(4):953-968), paraphrased in original words. As of October 2026, an update of PRISMA-ScR is listed as in development at https://www.prisma-statement.org/extensions. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example. This is a document format, not medical, methodological or legal advice; ask your librarian, methodologist and ethics committee where the review needs their input.

Document control

Approvals

Revision history

Contents

Part A: Protocol

1. Administrative information
2. Registration and amendments
3. Introduction
4. Review question and eligibility
5. Information sources and search
6. Selection of sources of evidence
7. Data charting
8. Critical appraisal (optional)
9. Analysis and presentation
10. Consultation, ethics and timeline

Part B: Report

11. Report front matter
12. Results
13. Discussion and other information
14. PRISMA-ScR traceability
15. Glossary and references

1. Administrative information

This section identifies the review, the people who conduct it and how it is funded.

1.1 Identification

1.2 Review team and contributions

1.3 Funding and conflicts of interest

2. Registration and amendments

Registering the protocol makes later changes visible and reduces duplicated effort across teams.

2.1 Registration [5]

2.2 Amendments

Record every change made after registration, with the reason and the date. Report each one again in the review (section 13.4).

3. Introduction

The introduction sets out what is known, what is unclear and what this review will map.

3.1 Rationale [3]

[Summarise what is known about the topic, how the concept is defined in the literature, and why the evidence base is broad, diverse or poorly mapped. Describe the preliminary search for existing reviews: which sources were searched, on which date, and what was found.]

Example: Digital peer support for unpaid carers of people living with dementia is described with many terms (online support groups, peer mentoring apps, moderated forums). A preliminary search of two databases and one review registry on YYYY-MM-DD found two systematic reviews of effectiveness, both limited to randomised trials, and no review mapping how these services are designed, delivered and evaluated.

3.2 Objectives and review questions [4]

State the objective and the review questions. Each question should map to fields on the charting form (section 7) and to a table or figure in the report (section 12).

4. Review question and eligibility

The eligibility criteria decide which sources of evidence enter the map.

4.1 Population, Concept and Context

4.2 Eligibility criteria [6]

Explain how you will handle borderline cases, for example by recording them in a decision log that the guarantor reviews weekly.

5. Information sources and search

The search aims to find the full range of evidence, including sources that are not indexed in bibliographic databases.

5.1 Information sources [7]

5.2 Search strategy [8]

Step 1, initial limited search: [two databases searched on YYYY-MM-DD; text words and index terms collected from titles and abstracts of relevant records].

Step 2, full search: [strategy adapted for each source; peer reviewed by a second information specialist using the PRESS checklist].

Step 3, citation searching: [reference lists of included sources and forward citations checked].

Give the full strategy for at least one database. Use a text block so the line numbers and syntax stay exact.

Example (fictional strategy, generic syntax):
1  dementia OR alzheimer* OR "cognitive impairment"
2  carer* OR caregiver* OR "family member*" OR spouse*
3  "peer support" OR "peer mentor*" OR "support group*" OR "lived experience"
4  online OR digital OR internet OR app OR "mobile health" OR forum* OR web*
5  1 AND 2 AND 3 AND 4
6  limit 5 to yr="2008-current"

6. Selection of sources of evidence

Selection is done in two stages: titles and abstracts, then full texts.

6.1 Selection process [9]

6.2 Reasons for exclusion at full text

Fix the list before screening so that the flow diagram uses the same reasons in the same order.

7. Data charting

The charting form records the information needed to answer each review question.

7.1 Charting process [10]

7.2 Data items [11]

8. Critical appraisal (optional)

State whether sources will be appraised and why.

9. Analysis and presentation

This section explains how charted data will be summarised and presented.

9.1 Synthesis of results [13]

9.2 Process overview

The diagram shows the order of the review stages planned in Part A.

10. Consultation, ethics and timeline

Planning for consultation, ethics and timing completes the protocol.

10.1 Stakeholder consultation

10.2 Ethics

[State whether ethics approval is needed. A review of published sources usually does not need it; consultation that collects data from people may. Give the committee name and reference or the exemption decision.]

10.3 Timeline

11. Report front matter

The report opens with a title and a structured summary.

11.1 Title [1]

[Concept] in [population] in [context]: a scoping review

11.2 Structured summary [2]

11.3 Introduction and methods

Summarise the rationale [3] and objectives [4] from section 3 and the methods [5 to 13] from sections 2 and 4 to 9. Report every amendment from section 2.2 and say how it could have affected the map.

12. Results

This section reports what was found.

12.1 Selection of sources of evidence [14]

The flow diagram follows the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram layout, which scoping reviews commonly adopt. All counts below are Example values and add up: 2,846 + 112 - 731 = 2,227 records screened; 2,227 - 1,989 = 238 sought; 238 - 9 = 229 assessed; 229 - 171 = 58 included from databases and registers; 64 - 3 - 46 = 15 included from other methods; 58 + 15 = 73 sources included.

12.2 Characteristics of sources of evidence [15]

Give the full characteristics table for every included source in an appendix, one row per source with the fields CH-01 to CH-06.

12.3 Critical appraisal within sources [16]

[Report appraisal results only if section 8 planned appraisal; otherwise state "Not done, as planned in the protocol".]

12.4 Results of individual sources [17]

[For each included source, present the charted data relevant to the review questions, usually in an appendix table. Keep the charter's summaries short and factual.]

12.5 Synthesis of results [18]

Present the map for each review question, in the format planned in section 9.1.

Evidence gap map for RQ-03 (counts of sources; empty cells are gaps):

13. Discussion and other information

The discussion interprets the map and its limits.

13.1 Summary of evidence [19]

[Summarise the main results for each review question, link them to the review objectives and say how they relate to existing reviews and the needs of the intended audience.]

13.2 Limitations [20]

• [Limitations of the scoping review process, for example a language restriction or one screener at the title stage]
• [Limitations of the evidence, for example inconsistent terminology that made the concept hard to search]
• [Limitations from deviations listed in section 2.2]

13.3 Conclusions [21]

[State the general interpretation of the map with respect to the review questions and objectives, the gaps found, and potential next steps such as a systematic review on a well-covered question or primary research on an unstudied population.]

13.4 Deviations from the protocol

13.5 Funding [22]

[Describe sources of funding for the included sources, if charted, and for this scoping review, and the role of the funders.]

14. PRISMA-ScR traceability

15. Glossary and references

15.1 Glossary

15.2 Methodological references

• Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
• Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Khalil H, et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20(4):953-968. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-21-00242
• Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2024. Chapter 10, Scoping reviews. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01
• Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
• Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

Related templates in this library: science/systematic-review (PRISMA-P protocol for a systematic review), science/systematic-review-report (PRISMA 2020 report), academic/literature-review (narrative review), academic/annotated-bibliography (source notes) and science/data-management-plan (managing review data).

Standard and licence note

Structure aligned with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR, Tricco et al., Ann Intern Med 2018;169(7):467-473; 22 items) and with JBI scoping review methodology as described in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (2024 edition, chapter 10) and the JBI protocol reporting items (Peters et al., JBI Evid Synth 2022). This template follows the PRISMA-ScR item numbering with short topic names and original wording only; it reproduces no checklist or manual text. The JBI Manual is named and cited only. Official checklist: PRISMA Executive, https://www.prisma-statement.org/scoping. Official JBI guidance: JBI, https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. Both were checked in October 2026, when an update of PRISMA-ScR was listed as in development; check the current versions and your registry's rules before use. This is a document format, not medical, methodological or legal advice. Template licence: MIT.