Narrative Review vs Scoping Review
A scoping review systematically maps the extent and nature of evidence on a broad topic, using a protocol, a reproducible search and charting of data; a narrative review interprets and discusses literature with more author discretion. Choose scoping when your aim is to map what exists, and narrative when your aim is to explain or critique.
Comparison
| Feature | Narrative review | Scoping review |
|---|---|---|
| Main aim | Interpretation and discussion | Map concepts, evidence types and gaps |
| Protocol | Optional | Recommended and often registered |
| Search | Selective, described | Systematic and reproducible |
| Selection | Author judgement | Explicit criteria, ideally two reviewers |
| Data handling | Thematic notes | Structured charting |
| Appraisal | Usually critical commentary | Often no formal quality appraisal |
| Reporting | SANRA as a quality guide | PRISMA-ScR |
Choosing
- If you ask "what is known about X, and what types of studies exist?": scoping.
- If you ask "how should we understand X, and what is the balance of arguments?": narrative.
- If you need an effect estimate or recommendation: systematic review.
Illustrative example
Invented for teaching. A scoping review of digital tools for postnatal depression charts how many studies there are by design, country and outcome, and finds that few studies include low-income settings. A narrative review on the same subject might instead discuss mechanisms, equity issues and practice implications.
A short decision guide
Ask three questions. First, do I need to describe the extent and kinds of evidence, including gaps? If so, choose a scoping review with a protocol. Second, do I want to interpret, critique or teach? If so, a narrative review fits. Third, do I need to estimate an effect or make a recommendation? If so, a systematic review is more suitable. Whichever you choose, say exactly what you did in the methods, so that readers do not mistake one type for another.
Common pitfalls
- Using "scoping" to justify a quick, unreproducible search.
- Drawing effectiveness conclusions from a scoping review.
Key takeaways
- Scoping reviews map; narrative reviews interpret.
- Report scoping reviews with PRISMA-ScR.
- Write a protocol before you start a scoping review.
References and further reading
- 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. doi:10.7326/M18-0850
- Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19-32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616
- Baethge C, Goldbeck-Wood S, Mertens S. SANRA: a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4:5. doi:10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8
Related reading
This page is general educational information about research methods. It is not medical, legal or regulatory advice; follow your institution's ethics board and your target journal's instructions.