PRISMA-ScR Checklist Explained: All 22 Items, Examples, and 2026 Updates

What is the PRISMA-ScR checklist?

PRISMA-ScR (the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) was published in 2018. A 24-member expert panel and two research leads developed it following EQUATOR Network guidance, and the explanatory paper gives a rationale and an example of good reporting for every item [1]. The official checklist and the developers' tip sheets for each item are free on the PRISMA website [3].

PRISMA-ScR is a reporting guideline: it tells you what a finished scoping review should report, not how to conduct one. For the methods themselves, most authors follow JBI guidance, which was revised in 2026 [4], or the frameworks of Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al. [5,6]. Our step-by-step guide to conducting a scoping review covers the conduct; this guide covers the reporting, item by item.

The 22 PRISMA-ScR items by section

Because a scoping review can include qualitative research, expert opinion, and policy documents as well as studies, PRISMA-ScR uses the term sources of evidence rather than studies, and critical appraisal rather than risk of bias [1]. Using the same terms in your manuscript makes the checklist easier to match.

How to complete the PRISMA-ScR checklist

1. Download the official checklist in Word or PDF from the PRISMA website [3], or record the items with our free PRISMA-ScR checklist tool and copy it into Word.

2. Complete it when the manuscript is final. For each item, give the page number, or the section heading if the journal will repaginate the manuscript.

3. Point to supplementary files where an item is reported there, such as the full search strategy (item 8) or the list of sources excluded at full text with reasons.

4. Mark items 12 and 16 as not applicable if you did not appraise the sources, and say so in your methods so readers know it was a decision rather than an omission.

5. Cite PRISMA-ScR in your methods, for example: "This review is reported in line with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR)."

6. Check every reference before you submit. Page numbers drift with each revision, and a checklist that points to the wrong page invites a reviewer query.

Example: part of a completed PRISMA-ScR checklist (hypothetical review of digital mental health tools for university students)

Title, abstract, and introduction (items 1-4)

Item 1: title

Identify the report as a scoping review in the title [1], so that it is indexed and found as one. Put the topic first and the design after a colon.

Example title (hypothetical review)

"Digital mental health tools for university students: a scoping review"

Item 2: structured summary

The abstract should cover, as applicable, the background, objectives, eligibility criteria, sources of evidence, charting methods, results, and conclusions that relate to the review questions [1]. Many journals set their own abstract headings; use the journal's headings and ensure each element appears under one of them.

Example structured abstract (hypothetical review)

Objective: To map the digital mental health tools evaluated with university students, the outcomes measured, and the evidence gaps.

Eligibility criteria: Sources of any design on digital tools for students in higher education, published from 2015.

Sources of evidence: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and gray literature, searched in March 2026.

Charting methods: Two reviewers charted data independently using a piloted form; results were summarized with frequency counts and basic content analysis.

Results: Of 936 records screened, 55 sources were included. Mindfulness and CBT-based apps were the most studied tools, and anxiety and depression the most measured outcomes; costs were rarely reported.

Conclusions: Evidence is growing but concentrated in high-income countries; peer support platforms, chatbots, and costs need further research.

Items 3 and 4: rationale and objectives

The rationale should explain what is already known and why the question suits a scoping review approach [1]. Typical reasons are mapping a broad or emerging field, clarifying concepts or definitions, examining how research has been conducted, identifying gaps, or checking whether a systematic review is warranted [7]. Our comparison of systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and scoping reviews can help you justify the choice.

State the objectives and questions explicitly, with their key elements, usually the population, concept, and context (PCC) [1]. The same PCC elements should then reappear in your eligibility criteria and your data charting form. You can draft PCC criteria with our free eligibility criteria builder.

Methods (items 5-13): what to report

The methods items are where most reporting gaps occur, because each one asks for details that are easy to leave out of a word-limited manuscript. Put long material, such as search strategies and charting forms, in supplementary files and point to them from the checklist.

PRISMA-ScR methods items, with example wording (hypothetical review)

Item 5: protocol and registration

PRISMA-ScR asks whether a protocol exists, where it can be accessed and, if registered, the registration number [1]. JBI requires an a priori protocol and asks authors to report any deviations from it, with reasons, in the final review [4,8]. PROSPERO does not accept scoping reviews, so protocols are usually registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) or Figshare; publishing the protocol in a journal is optional [4]. Our scoping review protocol template lists the headings to include.

Item 8: search

Report the full search strategy for at least one database, including limits, in enough detail to be repeated [1]. The developers' tip sheets also suggest stating who designed and ran the search (e.g., an information specialist), whether it was peer-reviewed with the PRESS checklist, and how you searched gray literature [3,9]. For a more complete search report, follow PRISMA-S [10]. When you search Google or Google Scholar, state in advance how many results you will screen [4].

Tip: Build and document the strategy with our free PubMed search strategy builder, then convert it for other databases with the search string translator.

Item 9: selection of sources of evidence

Describe the whole selection process: how many reviewers screened, whether they worked independently, any pilot or calibration exercise, and how disagreements were resolved [1,3]. JBI recommends that at least two people screen titles, abstracts, and full texts independently. If that is not feasible, one person can screen while a second checks a proportion of the decisions, or checks all the exclusions; single-reviewer screening is not recommended outside rapid scoping reviews [4].

JBI also asks for the reasons each full text was excluded, listed in a supplementary file, and for backward and forward citation searching of the included sources. If you could not search citations, acknowledge it as a limitation [4]. Record the number of duplicates removed, because item 14 needs it; our reference deduplication tool gives you that number.

Items 10 and 11: data charting and data items

Item 10 asks how data were charted: the form, whether it was calibrated or piloted, whether charting was done independently or in duplicate, and how data were obtained or confirmed from investigators [1]. Item 11 asks you to list and define every charted variable, with any assumptions or simplifications [1]. JBI recommends written guidance for the form, a pilot with everyone who will chart, and two people charting each source independently, or one charting and another checking all or part of the work [4,11].

Our guide to data charting in a scoping review includes a charting form template and worked examples, and the free data extraction form builder produces a Word or spreadsheet form you can attach as the item 11 supplement.

Item 13: synthesis of results

Describe how the charted data were handled and summarized [1]: for example, frequency counts of source characteristics, basic qualitative content analysis of text data, and how the results are presented, in tables, charts, or an evidence map, for each review question [11]. Avoid describing methods a scoping review does not use, such as pooling effect sizes.

Critical appraisal in a scoping review: items 12 and 16

Critical appraisal is optional in PRISMA-ScR. Item 12 applies only if you appraised the sources: give the rationale, the methods, and how the results were used in the synthesis. Item 16 asks you to present the appraisal results [1]. These are the two optional items; all the others are essential.

JBI does not advocate critical appraisal or risk-of-bias assessment in scoping reviews. Appraisal judges the validity of findings so that they can inform practice and policy recommendations, and a scoping review's questions do not usually need that [4]. JBI describes a few exceptions [4]:

• Mapping the quality of a field, where describing the level of bias or quality across the evidence is part of the review's aim.

• Equity questions, such as whether sources adequately addressed equity issues.

• A request from a funder or decision-maker who wants to know both what evidence exists and its quality.

Even then, the appraisal results describe the evidence and should not be used to make recommendations for clinical or policy change [4]. If you do appraise, name a tool that matches each source type, say how many reviewers appraised each source and how they were calibrated, and explain how the results were used, for example charted and summarized descriptively [3]. Our free JBI critical appraisal checklists and AMSTAR 2 checklist record judgments and draw the summary plots.

Example wording for item 12 (hypothetical review)

Not appraised: "In line with JBI guidance and the aim of mapping the available evidence, we did not critically appraise the included sources."

Appraised: "Because the funder asked us to describe the quality of the evidence, two reviewers independently appraised each primary study with the relevant JBI checklist after calibrating on five studies. Appraisal results were charted and summarized descriptively and were not used to exclude sources."

Results, discussion, and funding (items 14-22)

PRISMA-ScR results, discussion, and funding items

Item 14 asks for a flow diagram where possible [1]. PRISMA-ScR does not supply a separate template, so you can adapt the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram [12], using "sources of evidence" in place of "studies". Our free PRISMA flow diagram generator checks that the numbers add up and lets you title it as a PRISMA-ScR flow diagram. Items 15 to 18 are covered in detail, with example tables and wording, in our guide to the results section of a scoping review.

In the discussion, item 20 is about the limitations of the review process, such as language limits, sources that could not be retrieved, or citation searching that was not done, not only the limitations of the included sources [1,3,4]. Report any deviations from the protocol here or in the methods, with their likely effect on the results [3].

Tip: Item 22 includes the funding of the included sources, which is often missed. Add a funding field to your charting form so you can report it without returning to every source.

Reporting knowledge user engagement and ethics

Levac et al. recommended consultation with stakeholders as a stage of a scoping review [6], and JBI now encourages engaging knowledge users, such as patients, clinicians, and policymakers, at any stage, from developing the question to interpreting and sharing the results [4,13]. PRISMA-ScR 2018 has no item for this [4], so describe it in the methods: who was involved, at which stages, how, and what changed as a result. JBI's guidance gives specific advice on reporting and evaluating this engagement [13].

A review of published sources does not usually need ethics approval. US regulations, for example, define a human subject as a living individual from whom researchers obtain information through intervention or interaction, or about whom they obtain identifiable private information [14], and analyzing published documents does neither. Collecting data from knowledge users through interviews, surveys, or focus groups can be different, so check with your institution's ethics board before you start.

What is changing in 2026: JBI guidance and the PRISMA-ScR update

JBI revised its scoping review chapter in 2026 [4]. The revised chapter, by Pollock et al., follows the steps of a review: forming and managing the team, engaging knowledge users, software and automation, the protocol, and then searching, selecting, extracting, analyzing, presenting, and summarizing the evidence. It also notes that the PRISMA-ScR extension is being updated, with a new version due in 2026 [4].

The PRISMA-ScR update group published a scoping review in 2026 to identify candidate reporting items [2]. From 43 documents (13 overviews of scoping reviews and 30 guidance documents), it identified 37 potential new items, which will be evaluated in a Delphi survey. The additions most often related to objectives, eligibility criteria, the search strategy, the data collection process, and the results of the synthesis. New items included reporting the eligibility criteria with a framework such as PCC, reporting deviations from the protocol, and presenting results visually with supporting text [2]. The update also aims to align with PRISMA 2020 and to involve patients and public partners [2].

Tip: Until a new checklist appears on the PRISMA website, report with the 2018 checklist. Reporting PCC-based eligibility criteria, protocol deviations, and a narrative alongside every figure costs little now and anticipates the update.

Common PRISMA-ScR reporting gaps

• A title that does not say "scoping review" (item 1).

• No protocol statement, or a plan to register in PROSPERO, which does not accept scoping reviews (item 5).

• Search terms listed but no complete strategy for at least one database (item 8).

• Screening and charting described without the number of reviewers, piloting, or how disagreements were resolved (items 9 and 10).

• Charted variables not listed or defined (item 11).

• Items 12 and 16 left blank instead of being marked not applicable, with a statement in the methods.

• Effect sizes, pooled estimates, or practice recommendations, which a scoping review cannot support (items 13, 18, and 21).

• Limitations of the included studies only, with nothing on the review process (item 20).

• No funding information for the included sources (item 22).

• Checklist page numbers that no longer match the revised manuscript.

Getting help with your scoping review

If you would like experienced reviewers to check your manuscript against PRISMA-ScR, complete the checklist, draft the protocol, or build the flow diagram and evidence gap map, see our scoping review service. Every quote is itemized and you pay only after you accept it.