Overview
Scoping reviews differ from systematic reviews in purpose and method: they are designed to map the landscape of evidence — identifying what types of studies exist, what concepts have been studied, and where gaps are — rather than to synthesize quality-appraised evidence to answer a specific clinical or policy question. Treating a scoping review like a systematic review (with quality appraisal and meta-analysis) misunderstands the methodology. Treating a systematic review like a scoping review (without quality appraisal) is methodologically inadequate for clinical decision-making.
The Scoping Review Framework follows the Arksey & O'Malley (2005) / JBI methodology — with charting forms designed to capture conceptual and empirical diversity across the evidence landscape, and a synthesis that maps territory rather than grades evidence quality.