PRISMA flow diagram for a scoping review
Updated 2026-10-12
Scoping reviews follow the PRISMA-ScR extension, which also asks for a flow diagram. The PRISMA 2020 layout works well once you adapt the wording.
What PRISMA-ScR asks for
The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (Tricco et al., Annals of Internal Medicine 2018) asks you to report the number of sources of evidence screened, assessed for eligibility and included, with reasons for exclusion at each stage, ideally in a flow diagram. This is item 14 of that checklist.
Adapt the PRISMA 2020 template
Scoping reviews often include more than journal articles, such as reports, guidelines or grey literature. Rename "studies" to "sources of evidence" where it fits your protocol. Every label in the free PRISMA flow diagram generator is editable, so you can change the wording in place. If you searched websites or organisations, choose the template with other methods.
Differences from a systematic review
- Scoping reviews usually do not appraise study quality, so the diagram ends at inclusion.
- Included items are "sources of evidence", which may not be studies.
- The eligibility criteria are usually broader, which can mean more full-text exclusions.
What to count at each stage
The boxes are the same as in a systematic review. What changes is what flows through them.
- Identification: records from each database, named individually, plus anything found through websites, organisations, citation searching or contact with experts. Scoping reviews lean on these other sources more than most systematic reviews do, so expect the right-hand column to matter.
- Removed before screening: duplicates, and any records your team removed with automation tools or for another stated reason.
- Screening: records screened on title and abstract, and how many were excluded.
- Retrieval: reports you tried to obtain in full, and how many you could not get. Grey literature is often harder to retrieve, so this box is rarely zero.
- Eligibility: reports assessed in full, and reports excluded with a count for each reason.
- Included: the sources of evidence in the review, and the number of reports they came from.
Wording changes that are commonly made
PRISMA-ScR uses "sources of evidence" on purpose, because a scoping review can include policy documents, guidelines, websites and opinion pieces as well as research studies. Typical edits are:
- "Studies included in review" becomes "Sources of evidence included in review".
- "Reports of included studies" becomes "Reports of included sources".
- Exclusion reasons follow your population, concept and context criteria, for example "Wrong concept" or "Wrong context", in place of the intervention and outcome reasons a systematic review would use.
Change only what your review needs. Keep the three section names (Identification, Screening, Included) and the order of the boxes, so readers who know the PRISMA 2020 layout can still read your figure at a glance.
Reporting grey literature searches
If you searched organisation websites, government portals or a search engine, list each source by name in the other methods column and give the number of records each one produced. Where a source has no exportable result count, such as hand-browsing a website, record the number of items you actually looked at and say so in your methods. A reader should be able to see where every included source came from.
Common mistakes in scoping review diagrams
- Leaving "studies" in the final box when the review includes documents that are not studies.
- Giving one total for all databases. PRISMA 2020 asks for each database's count where feasible.
- Reporting full-text exclusions as a single number with no reasons.
- Adding a critical appraisal step to the diagram. Appraisal is optional in a scoping review and is not a selection stage.
- Numbers that do not add up between boxes. Run through the worked example to see how each box should reconcile with the one above it.
Check your guidance
Follow the guidance your team uses for the review, for example the JBI methodology, and confirm the diagram wording with your target journal. The systematic review guide covers the counts that apply to both review types.
Quick answers
Can I use the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for a scoping review?
Yes. The layout is widely adapted for scoping reviews. Rename labels such as studies to sources of evidence where your protocol needs it.
Is there a separate PRISMA-ScR flow diagram template?
No. PRISMA-ScR is a checklist and does not publish its own diagram. Authors adapt the PRISMA flow diagram, and the PRISMA 2020 layout is the current version to adapt.
Do I cite PRISMA 2020 or PRISMA-ScR?
Cite PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al., 2018) as your reporting guideline. If your figure uses the PRISMA 2020 layout, cite Page et al., 2021 as the source of the diagram.
Source of the flow diagram wording: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71. Licensed CC BY 4.0. This site is independent and not affiliated with the PRISMA or EQUATOR Network groups.