Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 8, 2026

Using SCOPE to Identify Potential Regulatory Motifs in Coregulated Genes
Published on: May 31, 2011
Using scoping reviews as precursors to systematic reviews: a typology and practical guidance derived from eight
Hanan Khalil1, Zachary Munn2, Christina Godfrey3
1School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Objective:
Scoping reviews are often conducted as a precursor to a systematic review, yet guidance on how this relationship should be planned, executed and reported is limited. We aimed to illustrate, through worked examples, the ways in which scoping reviews can function as precursors to systematic reviews and to derive practical guidance for teams planning linked or sequential syntheses.
Study Design And Setting:
We undertook a methodological analysis of eight contemporary evidence-synthesis papers and protocols spanning veterinary medicine, animal welfare, public health, mental health, occupational health and patient-and-public involvement, identified through the authors' knowledge of the evidence-synthesis literature. Each paired a scoping review with a systematic review. For every example we charted the structural relationship between the two reviews and the specific functions performed by the scoping stage.
Results:
Across the eight purposively selected examples, four structural configurations were identified: (i) integrated sequential designs reported within a single project or paper; (ii) an antecedent, separately published scoping review whose search and records are inherited and extended by a later systematic review; (iii) a single "parent" scoping review that seeds several targeted systematic reviews; and (iv) a complementary scoping review run alongside a systematic review to contextualise sparse evidence. Across configurations, scoping reviews delivered seven recurring functions: feasibility and volume assessment; prioritisation of a tractable question; concept and definition clarification; eligibility and appraisal-tool decisions; search architecture and a reusable record set; gap identification; and conceptual or logic frameworks to structure synthesis.
Conclusion:
Scoping reviews can provide important foundational work for systematic reviews. Drawing on these illustrative examples, we propose a decision framework and reporting recommendations to help teams refine the specific purpose of a scoping review used as a precursor.
Related Concept Videos
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Methods of Documentation IV: Focus Charting
It typically involves three columns for recording information:
Observational Studies
There are three types of observational studies – Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional.
Prospective Study
Prospective studies, also known as longitudinal or cohort studies, are carried out by collecting future data from groups sharing similar characteristics. One example of...
Qualitative Analysis
For instance, group IV...
Qualitative Analysis
There are two main approaches to qualitative analysis:...
Methods of Documentation V: CBE
In CBE, healthcare professionals establish predefined standards of practice that define what constitutes...