Scoping Reviews Should Describe—Not Score

Abstract

Recent calls for increased transparency in scoping reviews, such as those by Ang et al. (2026) in Learned Publishing, have led to suggestions to use tools like the Quality Assessment with Diverse Studies (QuADS) to enhance reporting clarity.

Originally developed to appraise reporting in mixed-methods research (Harrison et al. 2021), QuADS was not designed for the broader, more inclusive goals of scoping reviews. While well-intentioned, arguments for applying QuADS to scoping reviews risk conceptual misalignment and methodological overreach. Instead of enhancing clarity, it may inadvertently distort the purpose and strengths of the method.

Efforts to improve reporting and transparency in scoping reviews are vital. But the routine use of evaluative tools like QuADS assumes a narrow definition of quality that conflicts with the exploratory and epistemically inclusive aims of scoping reviews.

Instead of applying rigid methodological frameworks, we should embrace the diverse evidence base of scoping reviews, ensuring transparency through reflexive and context-sensitive reporting. Tools should enable, not constrain, the method.

The sole author contributed to all aspects of this manuscript.

The author has nothing to report.

The author has nothing to report.

The author has nothing to report.

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.