Most teams finish a scoping review in about 6–12 months; rapid projects take 2–4 months, and complex ones can stretch to 12–20 months.
Planning a scoping review is a project, not a single task. Time shifts with the size of the literature, the number of reviewers, and how polished you want the methods and reporting to be. The sections below lay out realistic timelines, stage-by-stage steps, and the levers that speed things up without cutting corners.
Typical Timeframe To Complete A Scoping Review
Most academic libraries and methods groups quote a window near half a year to one year for a full build. That range reflects common bottlenecks: protocol agreement, search development, dual-review screening, data charting, and write-up with the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Guidance for scoping reviews also notes that real-world projects sometimes land at the edges of that range. One large scan of published scoping reviews reported completion times from two weeks to twenty months, showing how scope and team capacity drive the calendar.
If speed is the constraint, a rapid scoping approach shortens or narrows certain steps under a pre-defined method, with typical durations quoted from a few weeks up to four months when the question and sources are tightly bounded.
Stage-By-Stage Plan And Estimated Durations
Every project moves through a similar arc: define, search, screen, chart, and report. The matrix below gives a broad scheduling view you can adapt to your topic and team size.
| Stage | What Happens | Typical Duration |
|---|---|---|
| Scope & Protocol | Confirm aims, concepts, context; draft protocol aligned with JBI; set screening rules and data charting form. | 2–6 weeks (faster with a prior protocol template) |
| Search Strategy | Partner with an information specialist; design and translate searches across databases; run and deduplicate. | 4–6 weeks for a tailored search set. |
| Title/Abstract Screening | Dual screening with conflicts resolved; pilot to calibrate; use a tool such as Covidence or Rayyan. | 3–8 weeks depending on yield size and team count. |
| Full-Text Screening | Retrieve PDFs; apply inclusion rules; log reasons for exclusion. | 2–6 weeks; longer with many gray-literature hits. |
| Data Charting | Extract variables; refine the charting template; spot-check for consistency. | 3–8 weeks; scales with the number of included sources. |
| Analysis & Mapping | Group concepts, map evidence types and gaps; prepare figures/tables. | 2–6 weeks; faster when the scope is narrow. |
| Write-Up & Reporting | Draft narrative, PRISMA-style flow diagram, and PRISMA-ScR checklist. | 3–6 weeks for a clean manuscript package. |
Why The Timeline Swings
The same method can run fast or slow for reasons that have little to do with effort and a lot to do with scope. Three drivers matter most.
Volume Of Literature
Broad concepts or multiple populations flood the search results. More hits mean more screening passes and more charting work. Studies on screening workloads point to weeks or months for large sets, even with good tools.
Team Size And Availability
Dual screening and verification demand at least two reviewers, and a third to break ties helps. University services often point out that timelines stretch without a dedicated team schedule, while librarian-led searches alone require several weeks to build and test.
Method Choices
A full scoping approach favors wide searches, more sources, and transparent reporting with a complete PRISMA-ScR checklist. A rapid scoping variant narrows databases, trims gray sources, or uses a single screener with verification to reduce time.
Setting Up A Calendar That Works
Start with the required outputs and work backward. If you must submit within a semester, shape the question and the sources to fit a rapid plan. If you have a year, set a cadence that protects quality: weekly screening quotas, biweekly calibration checks, and a firm handoff to writing once charting reaches saturation.
Anchor Your Method To Trusted Standards
Two references keep teams aligned and speed decisions on scope, variables, and reporting:
- PRISMA-ScR checklist for transparent reporting, including the flow diagram and item-by-item coverage.
- JBI scoping review chapter for stepwise conduct and protocol structure.
Right-Size The Question
Frame concepts tightly enough to keep the hit list manageable. If the first pilot search returns thousands of records, narrow the context, limit years where justified, or add sharper inclusion boundaries before you commit to screening the full set.
Practical Benchmarks You Can Use
Use these quick checks to see where your plan sits on the calendar.
- Search build time: librarians often quote four to six weeks for a tailored multi-database search, including translation and testing.
- Rapid scoping window: with narrowed sources and streamlined screening, 2–4 months is common.
- Full project window: six to twelve months is a realistic default for a dual-reviewer build with full reporting. Library guides and services align on that range.
- Edge cases: published scoping reviews have spanned from two weeks to twenty months; expect the ends of that range only with unusual scope or resources.
Team Roles And Hand-Offs
Clear roles cut delay. A lean team that still meets good-practice checks looks like this:
Lead Reviewer
Owns the protocol, chairs calibration meetings, and keeps the scope from drifting. Drafts the write-up and owns the PRISMA-ScR checklist.
Information Specialist
Designs and translates searches; documents strategies for transparency; updates searches if the timeline passes a few months between screening and submission.
Second Reviewer
Performs dual screening and data checks; resolves conflicts with the lead or a third reviewer.
Third Reviewer (As Needed)
Adjudicates conflicts, runs spot checks on charting, and sanity-checks the figures and tables.
Screening And Charting: Time Savers That Don’t Cut Quality
Small process tweaks pay off when the hit list is large.
Pilot Before You Commit
Run a short pilot of 50–100 records to tighten inclusion rules and test the data chart. This reduces rescoring and rewrites later.
Use A Screening Tool
Software that handles deduplication, blinding, and conflict tracking saves hours, especially when the yield crosses a few thousand records. Work on daily quotas to keep momentum.
Lock A Minimal Chart
Limit the charting template to variables that serve the map you plan to present. Add fields only if they change a figure or table you will publish.
When A Rapid Scoping Approach Fits
Use a rapid plan when decisions are time-bound or the question is narrow. The review stays methodical, just tighter: fewer databases, limited years, a single screener with verification, and focused charting. Cochrane training materials show examples where duration drops to weeks when scope is pre-agreed and sources are limited.
Writing And Reporting Without Rework
Draft the methods section as you go. Log search strategies, screening counts, and reasons for exclusion while they’re fresh. Build the PRISMA-style flow diagram and the PRISMA-ScR checklist alongside the narrative, not at the end. The checklist is short, and writing to it prevents back-tracking late in the schedule.
Common Bottlenecks And How To Avoid Them
The table below lists the delays that most often blow past the initial estimate and the moves that pull time back without hurting transparency.
| Delay Driver | How It Adds Time | Time Saver |
|---|---|---|
| Over-Broad Question | Explodes hits; screening and charting balloon. | Refine concepts and context; pilot search before locking scope. |
| No Protocol Consensus | Back-and-forth during screening and charting. | Adopt JBI structure; hold a short kickoff to agree on rules. |
| Search Built Too Late | Gaps surface mid-project; reruns add weeks. | Schedule librarian time early; allow 4–6 weeks for a full search. |
| Single-Reviewer Screening | Inconsistent calls; rework after audits. | Use dual screening with quick calibration passes. |
| Massive Gray Literature | Harder retrieval and de-duplication. | Define source boundaries up front; apply rapid rules if timelines are tight. |
| Late Reporting Build | Scramble to reconstruct counts and items. | Write to the PRISMA-ScR checklist as data accrue. |
Sample 6-Month Plan You Can Adapt
Here’s a workable cadence for a two-to-three-person team targeting a half-year finish:
Weeks 1–2
Protocol draft using the JBI chapter as a template; define concepts and eligible evidence types; book time with an information specialist.
Weeks 3–6
Search design, peer review of search strings, database runs, deduplication, and pilot screening set-up.
Weeks 7–10
Title/abstract screening with daily quotas; quick calibration meetings; start document retrieval.
Weeks 11–14
Full-text screening; log exclusions; stabilize the charting template.
Weeks 15–20
Data charting and mapping; draft figures and tables in parallel.
Weeks 21–24
Write methods and results; complete PRISMA-ScR items; finalize the flow diagram; polish the narrative.
Quality Signals That Keep Reviewers Happy
Stick to transparent, reproducible steps. Cite the search strategies, share the screening rules, and label figures clearly. When time is short, use a rapid method with explicit limits. When time allows, keep the wider search and full dual screening. In both cases, report to the same standard so readers can judge the map and its limits.
Bottom Line For Planning
If you budget six to twelve months, you’ll match the reality most teams see. With a tight scope and a rapid approach, two to four months is possible. Large, multi-concept topics can run closer to a year or edge toward the upper tail seen in published projects. Lock a clear protocol, schedule librarian time early, and write to PRISMA-ScR from day one.