The essential foundation
Understanding this project
A scoping review is useful when the purpose is to map a broad or emerging evidence base, clarify concepts, describe how research has been conducted or identify gaps. It still requires a transparent and reproducible methodology.
Scoping reviews are especially useful when nursing researchers need to understand how a concept has been defined, which populations have been studied or where the evidence is concentrated. They are not simply systematic reviews with fewer rules. The purpose, eligibility framework and presentation of findings need to match an evidence mapping question.
A decision specific to this project
Evidence map
Population, Concept and Context help define the boundary of the map. Chart characteristics and research gaps instead of forcing pooled effect estimates.
What to prepare
A PCC statement, transparent charting fields and a descriptive evidence map.
Methodological boundary: The absence of studies in a chart is not proof that an intervention has no effect.
Where difficulties begin
Defining the Boundaries of an Evidence Map
I am not sure whether my question needs a scoping or systematic review.
My review scope is too broad to manage.
I do not know what information to chart from each study.
I need a clearer way to present evidence gaps.
I am unsure how PRISMA-ScR should appear in the final paper.
A practical approach
Planning an Evidence-Mapping Review
Define what the review is trying to map. The Population, Concept and Context framework helps researchers keep the scope coherent without imposing an intervention effectiveness question on an exploratory topic. Plan sources, eligibility criteria, search terms, screening decisions and data charting fields before screening begins. Describe anticipated limitations and how amendments will be recorded.
Clarify the mapping objective
Define what the review is trying to map. The Population, Concept and Context framework helps researchers keep the scope coherent without imposing an intervention effectiveness question on an exploratory topic.
Create a transparent protocol
Plan sources, eligibility criteria, search terms, screening decisions and data charting fields before screening begins. Describe anticipated limitations and how amendments will be recorded.
Chart evidence consistently
Extract study characteristics, concepts, contexts and relevant outcomes using a pilot tested charting form. Avoid presenting the chart as if it were a pooled estimate of effectiveness.
Report the map and its gaps
Present themes, study types and distributions clearly. Explain where evidence is sparse without claiming that absence of published evidence proves an intervention is ineffective.
Putting the ideas into context
Mapping Remote-Monitoring Literature
A DNP student interested in how nurses use remote monitoring in rural primary care may first need to map the types of technology, care settings and implementation barriers studied. A scoping review can establish that landscape before a narrower effectiveness question is formulated.
Illustrative example only; check your programme requirements, actual evidence and any necessary permissions.
What support looks like for this topic
How we support your research
Review Question
Clarify the concept, population and context so the review has a coherent boundary.
Protocol & Eligibility
Define what will be included, why it is relevant and how decisions will be documented.
Search Strategy
Develop a search broad enough to map the field without losing methodological control.
Screening & Charting
Build screening rules and a data-charting framework aligned with the review objective.
Evidence Mapping
Organise study characteristics, concepts, methods and gaps into a useful descriptive synthesis.
PRISMA-ScR Reporting
Present the search, selection and synthesis clearly using scoping-review reporting expectations.
Good research practice
A practical note for this stage
A scoping review maps what is known and where questions remain. We can help you decide what the evidence map can reasonably show.
Explore the subject further
Related specialist areas
Focused guidance for the next decision in your research.
Question formulation, protocol, searching, screening, appraisal, synthesis and PRISMA reporting.
Map the breadth of evidence, concepts, study characteristics and research gaps.
Effect sizes, pooling, heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis, forest plots and interpretation.
PICO concepts, keywords, controlled vocabulary and searches across CINAHL, PubMed and other databases.
Eligibility criteria, title/abstract screening, full-text decisions and structured extraction.
JBI, CASP, RoB 2 and other design-appropriate appraisal approaches.
Questions researchers ask
Frequently asked questions
Can I request only one stage of a review?
Yes. The architecture supports modular requests such as search strategy, screening, data extraction, appraisal, synthesis or manuscript support.
Do all systematic reviews need a meta-analysis?
No. Meta-analysis is appropriate only when the included studies are sufficiently compatible and the review question supports quantitative pooling.
Can a scoping review be used instead?
Yes, when the objective is to map the breadth and characteristics of evidence rather than estimate a pooled effect.
Further reading
Research standards and reliable resources
These external resources can help you explore relevant methodological guidance. Always follow the requirements of your programme and verify the version of any standard you use.