There is room for improvement in the use of scoping reviews in dentistry.

Objective: To evaluate the reporting of authors' justifications for choosing the scoping review methodology in oral health.

Study Selection, Data And Source: This is a meta-research study about scoping reviews in dentistry. This study searched for reviews in PubMed and Scopus without year restrictions and restricted to English-language publications. Study selection was undertaken by two reviewers independently. Each of these reviewers extracted data from half of the included studies considering general study characteristics and scoping reviews objectives, as well as data about whether or not the authors clearly explained why they chose the scoping review framework.

Results: We included 184 articles. Ninety-seven of the reports did not provide a rationale as to why they chose the scoping review method (52.7%). Regarding the reported aims of the studies, 29.9% (n = 29/87) of the scoping reviews presented more than one. When comparing studies reporting the use of the PRISMA-ScR to those not reporting the PRISMA-ScR, there is no difference in the reporting of a clear explanation of why the authors used a scoping review method.

Conclusion: There is room for improvement in how authors report their justifications for choosing the scoping review method.

Clinical Significance: Scoping reviews may be used by researchers who are unaware of this method. Educational initiatives should thus be encouraged.