SCOPING REVIEW PROTOCOL AND PRISMA-SCR RESOURCE

Scoping Review Protocol Template and PRISMA-ScR Checklist

Plan a focused scoping review around population, concept, and context, then map protocol and reporting decisions to JBI guidance and PRISMA-ScR.

Build Your Protocol Foundation →
Explore the 13-Course Meta-Journey

By Dr. Esmaeel Saeedy Robat, Founder of MetaSyn Academy · Published meta-analyst (Nature Human Behaviour, 2026)

Practical methodology resourceEvidence checked: 9 August 2026

A scoping-review protocol is not a systematic-review protocol with PICO replaced by PCC. It has to preserve the purpose of mapping evidence while specifying enough in advance to make later decisions transparent. This template follows current JBI scoping-review methodology and the dedicated protocol guidance from Peters and colleagues. PRISMA-ScR is kept in its proper role: a reporting guideline for the completed review, not the method used to design the protocol.1,2,3

The distinction matters because scoping reviews are deliberately iterative in places where a conventional protocol may appear more fixed. JBI recommends PCC to connect the title, question and inclusion criteria; a comprehensive search that can evolve as terminology becomes clearer; independent source selection by two or more reviewers; and a draft data-extraction or charting form that is piloted at protocol stage and may be refined later.1 Iteration, however, is not a license to change the review question silently. Changes still need to be visible, dated and justified.

What this resource does: it helps you write a prospective scoping-review plan and preserve an amendment trail. The final crosswalk shows which protocol decisions will later support PRISMA-ScR reporting. It does not certify PRISMA-ScR compliance, methodological quality or eligibility for any journal or registry.

Keep conduct, protocol planning and reporting in separate lanes

Three sources commonly appear together in scoping-review papers, but they do different jobs. The JBI Manual explains how a JBI scoping review is planned and conducted. Peters et al. provide dedicated guidance and recommended reporting items for the protocol itself. PRISMA-ScR specifies what should be reported when the scoping review is completed.1,2,3 Mixing these roles creates predictable errors: authors call PRISMA-ScR a conduct method, copy intervention-focused PRISMA-P fields that do not fit their mapping purpose, or assume that a protocol is complete because it anticipates a reporting checklist.

SourceMain jobUse in this templateDo not use it to claim
JBI Manual, Chapter 10Scoping-review methodology, including protocol development, searching, selection, extraction, analysis and presentation.Controls the methodological structure and decision prompts.That every discipline must use one identical implementation.
Peters et al. protocol guidanceDedicated guidance for developing and reporting a scoping-review protocol.Controls protocol-specific fields, including administrative information and scoping adaptations of protocol items.That PRISMA-P itself is the scoping-review protocol standard.
PRISMA-ScR 2018Reporting guideline with 20 essential and 2 optional items for the completed scoping review.Provides a future-reporting crosswalk after the protocol fields.That the protocol is “PRISMA-ScR compliant.”
PRISMA-ScR update projectOngoing revision of the 2018 reporting guideline.Currency note only. The 2026 scoping review identified 37 candidate items for later Delphi evaluation.That candidate items are current reporting requirements.
Scoping review protocol architecture A sequence from review purpose through PCC, search, source selection, data extraction, and analysis and presentation, with amendment tracking below and future reporting readiness to the right. The protocol is a chain of aligned decisions Purpose controls PCC; PCC controls eligibility; eligibility controls searching, selection and charting PurposeWhy map thisevidence? PCCPopulationConcept • Context SearchComprehensiveand auditable SelectionTwo or moreindependent reviewers Extraction / chartingPilot, refine and keepthe objective visible Analysis & presentationDescribe, categorize and map what was found Amendment trailWhat changed? When? Why? What did it affect? Future reporting readinessPrepare information now for later PRISMA-ScR reporting
Figure 1. The protocol should read as one connected argument rather than a set of independent boxes. Current JBI guidance explicitly requires congruence among the title, question and inclusion criteria, and it allows iterative searching and refinement of the charting form while requiring transparency about what changes.1

Before you fill the template, decide what your scoping review is for

A good protocol starts before PCC. First state why a scoping review is the appropriate evidence-synthesis design. Legitimate purposes include mapping the breadth or characteristics of evidence, clarifying concepts or definitions, identifying knowledge gaps, examining how research has been conducted, or preparing the ground for later evidence synthesis. A scoping review can stand alone; it does not need to exist merely as a preliminary exercise before a systematic review.5

The review question then determines how PCC is used. JBI recommends Population, Concept and Context as a guide for constructing a meaningful scoping-review title, question and inclusion criteria.1 PCC is not a mechanical acronym. Population may be irrelevant in a review of policy documents, methods or algorithms. Context may be deliberately open. Outcomes can sit inside the Concept when mapping outcomes is itself part of the objective. What matters is congruence: the words used in PCC must translate into real inclusion and exclusion decisions.

Fix prospectively

The reason for the review, primary question, core Concept, planned inclusion criteria, intended information sources, source-selection process, initial charting domains and intended form of analysis should be visible before the review proceeds. JBI treats an a priori protocol as part of a well-conducted scoping review.1,2

Allow justified refinement

Search terms may evolve as unfamiliar terminology appears. A draft charting form may be refined after piloting. These changes are compatible with scoping methodology when they remain auditable. A change to the core question or Concept is different: it is a substantive protocol amendment, not routine iteration.

Build your scoping-review protocol

Complete the sections in order. The tool creates a structured planning summary and a future-reporting readiness view; it does not judge the scientific quality of your protocol.

1. Review identity and rationale

Use a title that clearly identifies the work as a scoping-review protocol. State why mapping is needed and what the review will inform.

A vague objective such as “to explore the literature on X” gives too little direction for eligibility, charting and presentation. The objective should tell a reader what the review will actually map.
2. Question and PCC

JBI recommends PCC as a guide. Use only the restrictions needed to answer the scoping question; an element can remain open when restriction would undermine the purpose.

PCC check: do not force a comparator. Outcomes may legitimately be part of the Concept if the review is mapping how outcomes are defined or measured. If your actual objective is to estimate comparative effects, reconsider whether a scoping review is the right design.
3. Inclusion criteria and evidence-source policy

Scoping reviews may include many source types, but “include everything” is not a methodology. State what evidence is eligible and why those sources are needed.

4. Search strategy

Current JBI guidance uses a three-step approach: an initial limited search of at least two appropriate databases, analysis of terms, then comprehensive searching across included databases, followed by reference-list searching. Searching may be iterative, but every executed strategy must remain transparent and auditable.1,10

JBI says the search should ideally be as comprehensive as possible within time and resource constraints and that restrictions should be detailed and justified. Grey-literature searching may be necessary; it is not a universal checkbox that every scoping review must complete identically.
5. Source selection

JBI specifies independent title/abstract and full-text selection by two or more reviewers, with disagreement resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. It also recommends pilot testing before team screening begins.1

6. Data extraction (charting)

Current JBI uses “data extraction” and notes that scoping-review extraction may be called “data charting.” A draft form should be developed and piloted at protocol stage, and it may be refined during the review.1

Expected iteration: discovering that a useful characteristic should be added to the charting form during piloting can be legitimate. Record the change. Do not use “iterative” to conceal a change in the review’s core question.
7. Critical appraisal decision

Critical appraisal is not a default requirement for scoping reviews. If you include it, explain what methodological question it serves and how the results will be used.2

If no appraisal is planned, write your own rationale in the final protocol. A common reason is that the review aims to map the nature and distribution of evidence rather than judge the validity of an effect estimate.
8. Analysis and presentation

Plan analysis that answers the mapping objective. JBI allows simple frequency counts and, when appropriate, more in-depth descriptive quantitative analysis or basic qualitative content analysis. Interpretive qualitative synthesis and pooled effect meta-analysis usually indicate a different synthesis purpose.1,6

9. Knowledge-user engagement (optional)

JBI methodology supports consultation and co-creation with knowledge users, but engagement is purpose-dependent rather than mandatory for every scoping review.7

10. Protocol availability, registration and versioning

PROSPERO currently does not accept scoping reviews. JBI points authors toward OSF or Figshare, or protocol publication in a journal, while Peters et al. also discuss public availability outside PROSPERO.1,2,8

Do not register this scoping-review protocol in PROSPERO as though it were a systematic review. PROSPERO’s current eligibility guidance states that scoping reviews are not accepted.8
11. AI and automation plan (conditional)

Current cross-organizational guidance permits AI and automation in evidence synthesis when methodological rigor is protected, human oversight is retained and use is transparently reported.9

12. Amendment log

Use this from the first change onward. A transparent amendment is different from silently rewriting the original plan after the evidence is known.

DateProtocol sectionOriginal planRevised planReason
13. Future PRISMA-ScR reporting readiness

This crosswalk uses the current 2018 reporting guideline. The official PRISMA site still lists 20 essential and 2 optional reporting items, while an update remains under development.3,4

PRISMA-ScR reporting areaWhat can be prepared prospectively?Status in a protocol
1. TitleIdentify the work clearly as a scoping review and protocol.Prospective
2. Structured summaryObjectives and planned methods can be prepared; results cannot.Partial
3. RationaleState why the review is needed and what it will inform.Prospective
4. ObjectivesPre-specify the review question and PCC-aligned objectives.Prospective
5. Protocol / registrationState whether a protocol exists and where it can be accessed.Prospective
6. Eligibility criteriaSpecify inclusion/exclusion rules, including source types and restrictions.Prospective
7. Information sourcesList planned databases, platforms and other sources.Prospective
8. SearchPrepare a reproducible draft strategy and preserve executed versions later.Prospective
9. Selection of sourcesPre-specify reviewer roles, screening stages and disagreement resolution.Prospective
10. Data charting processDescribe the draft form, piloting and refinement process.Prospective
11. Data itemsList core and objective-specific charting domains.Prospective
12. Critical appraisalState whether it is planned and, if yes, why and how it will be used.Prospective
13. Synthesis of resultsPre-specify descriptive analysis and presentation methods.Prospective
14–22. Results, discussion, limitations, conclusions and funding reportingSome administrative information can be prepared, but findings and discussion belong to the completed review.Complete later
Current-status note: the 2026 PRISMA-ScR update project identified 37 potential reporting items, but those candidates are being taken forward for further consensus work. This template does not treat them as finalized requirements.4

Iteration is expected in selected places, not everywhere

The most useful way to think about a scoping protocol is to separate learning within the planned scope from changing the scope itself. JBI explicitly notes that searching may be iterative as reviewers become more familiar with the evidence base and discover additional keywords and sources. It also states that a draft charting form should be piloted at protocol stage and may be refined during the review.1 These are ordinary forms of methodological learning.

A change to the central Concept, a major expansion or contraction of eligible evidence, or a switch from descriptive mapping to pooled effect estimation is different. Those decisions change what the review is trying to answer. The safe response is not to hide them under the word “iterative”; it is to document the amendment, explain why it was necessary, and reassess whether the original review design remains appropriate.

Iteration versus protocol driftA continuum shows expected iterative refinements, transparent amendments, and major design drift, with examples placed in the appropriate zone.Not every change has the same methodological meaning Expected refinement• Add a newly discoveredsearch synonym• Refine charting fields after piloting• Clarify an eligibility definition• Improve presentation categoriesRecord what changed Protocol amendment• Add a source type afterjustification• Change date/language boundaries• Add critical appraisal• Expand information sourcesmateriallyDate, justify and updatethe public record Reassess the design• Replace the core Concept• Change the primary reviewquestion• Switch to pooled effectestimation• Redefine the evidence unitA new or materially revisedprotocol may be needed The boundaries are judgment-based; transparency matters more than pretending every change can be scored mechanically.
Figure 2. The left-to-right categories are a practical MetaSyn interpretation of JBI’s allowance for iterative searching/charting and its requirement to make deviations transparent. No universal numerical threshold separates refinement from a major amendment.

Protocol decisions that deserve an explicit warning

Using PCC as decorative terminology

If Population, Concept and Context appear in the title but do not control eligibility, PCC is not doing methodological work. Make each restriction traceable to the objective.

Calling PRISMA-ScR the method

PRISMA-ScR reports the completed review. JBI and dedicated scoping-protocol guidance define the prospective method.2,3

Assuming critical appraisal is forbidden

Appraisal can be included when it answers a defined purpose. If it is added, state the tool, reviewer process and how results will affect interpretation.

Assuming grey literature is automatically mandatory

JBI aims for comprehensive searching and notes that grey-material searching might be necessary. Its relevance should follow from the question and evidence-source policy, not a generic checkbox.1

Registering on PROSPERO under the wrong label

PROSPERO currently excludes scoping reviews. Choose a transparent public route that matches the design rather than misclassifying the project to obtain a registry number.8

Using “iterative” to hide hindsight

Refining search terms or piloting charting fields is different from changing the core question after seeing the evidence. Keep a dated amendment trail so readers can tell the difference.

Frequently asked questions

Do I need a protocol for a scoping review?

If you are following JBI methodology, an a priori protocol is part of the method. JBI states that the protocol should be developed before undertaking the scoping review so that objectives, methods and reporting plans are predefined and deviations can be identified.1 PRISMA-ScR itself does not create that requirement; it asks authors to report whether a protocol exists.

Does a scoping-review protocol have to be published in a journal?

No. Peer-reviewed protocol publication is one route to public transparency, but it is not the only route. Current JBI material also points to OSF and Figshare. What matters methodologically is that the prospective plan exists and that later changes can be distinguished from the original plan.1,2

Can I register a scoping review in PROSPERO?

Not under the current PROSPERO eligibility policy. Its official eligibility page states that scoping reviews are not currently accepted.8 A PROSPERO record may mention scoping reviews as evidence sources inside another eligible review, but that does not make a scoping-review protocol itself eligible.

Is PCC mandatory?

JBI recommends PCC and uses it throughout its scoping-review protocol guidance. Treat it as the default organizing framework when following JBI. It should still be applied intelligently: participant-level Population may be irrelevant in some document-, method- or policy-focused reviews, and Context may be deliberately open.1

Can outcomes appear in the Concept?

Yes. JBI explicitly notes that elements that would be called interventions, phenomena of interest or outcomes in other review questions may be implicit or explicit within the Concept when they are relevant to the scoping objective.1 The error is not mentioning an outcome; the error is quietly turning a mapping review into comparative effect estimation.

Can I change the search after the protocol is public?

Yes, when the change reflects legitimate learning about terminology or information sources and the full strategy remains transparent and auditable. JBI specifically recognizes that scoping-review searching can be iterative.1 Material changes should be logged and explained.

Should two reviewers screen studies in a scoping review?

Under current JBI guidance, source selection at title/abstract and full-text stages is performed independently by two or more reviewers, with disagreements resolved through consensus or a third reviewer.1 The breadth of the question does not justify weaker selection procedures.

Should I call it data extraction or data charting?

Either term is understandable, but current JBI headings use “data extraction” and explicitly note that the process may be called “data charting” in scoping reviews.1 This resource uses “Data extraction (charting)” to connect the current and historical terminology.

Can I conduct critical appraisal?

Yes, if it serves the review objective and is planned transparently. Scoping reviews often omit appraisal because their purpose is to map evidence rather than derive an inferential conclusion. If appraisal is included, pre-specify why, which tools will be used and how the findings will influence the review.2

Does PRISMA-ScR make my protocol compliant?

No. PRISMA-ScR is a reporting guideline for completed scoping reviews. This resource uses it prospectively only to help you retain information that will later need to be reported. The current published guideline remains the 2018 version while an update is under development.3,4

Use the protocol as a living record of prospective decisions

The final protocol should make the review reconstructable before the results are known. A reader should understand why scoping is the right design, how PCC defines the scope, what evidence will be sought, how sources will be selected, what information will be charted, whether appraisal is planned, how evidence will be analyzed and presented, and what process will be used when the team learns something that requires a change.

That last point is easy to miss. A protocol is not useful because every line remains frozen forever. It is useful because it creates a baseline against which legitimate refinements and substantive deviations can be seen. In a method that explicitly allows iterative searching and charting, transparent versioning is part of rigor rather than evidence that the protocol failed.

Read the scoping-review protocol methodology guideUnderstand why PCC, charting, iteration, appraisal and reporting readiness are handled differently in a scoping review.Develop the search strategyMove from protocol-level search decisions into detailed database and search-string construction.Recheck the review designReturn to the evidence-synthesis design hub if the planned question begins to move beyond a mapping objective.

Turn the protocol into a defensible review plan

If the broader review design is still uncertain, resolve the design before filling more fields. If the scoping purpose is clear, use the completed protocol as the baseline for search, selection, charting and transparent amendments.

Build protocol-planning skills in Course 1 →

Get every MetaSyn template free, including this one.

Leave your email and I’ll send this resource as an editable Word file and a printable PDF, plus access to the smart online version. You’ll also get every new template as it’s finished. No noise, just the resources.

References

  1. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 10: Scoping Reviews. In: Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Adelaide: JBI; 2024. JBI Manual: Scoping Reviews.
  2. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Khalil H, Larsen P, Marnie C, 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
  3. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, 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
  4. Tricco AC, Robinson E, Straus SE, et al. Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2026;196:112314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112314
  5. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
  6. Pollock D, Peters MDJ, Khalil H, et al. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2023;21(3):520-532. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00123
  7. Pollock D, Alexander L, Munn Z, et al. Moving from consultation to co-creation with knowledge users in scoping reviews: guidance from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20(4):969-979. PubMed record.
  8. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. PROSPERO: eligibility for inclusion. Current status checked 9 August 2026. PROSPERO eligibility.
  9. Flemyng E, Noel-Storr A, Macura B, et al. Position statement on artificial intelligence (AI) use in evidence synthesis across Cochrane, the Campbell Collaboration, JBI, and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2025. Campbell Syst Rev. 2025;21(4):e70074. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70074
  10. Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
Currency note. The current PRISMA website continues to list PRISMA-ScR 2018 as the published scoping-review reporting guideline. Its update is under development. The 2026 update scoping review generated potential items for subsequent consensus work; those items are not treated here as finalized requirements. PRISMA 2020 remains the main PRISMA statement rather than a generic replacement called “PRISMA 2026.”