This scoping review aimed to identify papers that described or used scoping review methods, guidelines for reporting scoping reviews, and studies that assessed the quality of reporting of scoping reviews. A systematic search of nine electronic databases and grey literature sources yielded 1525 citations and 874 full-text papers. After screening, 516 articles were included, of which 494 were scoping reviews. These reviews were published between 1999 and 2014, with 45% published after 2012. Most reviews were conducted in North America (53%) or Europe (38%), and 64% were publicly funded. The number of studies included in the reviews ranged from 1 to 2600, with an average of 118. Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology guidance, only 13% of the reviews reported using a protocol, 36% used two reviewers for citation selection, 29% used two reviewers for full-text screening, 30% used two reviewers for data charting, and 43% used a predefined charting form. Most reviews used their findings to identify evidence gaps (85%), provide recommendations for future research (84%), or identify strengths and limitations (69%). However, no guidelines for reporting scoping reviews or studies assessing the quality of reporting were identified. The number of scoping reviews has increased since 2012, and they are used to inform research agendas and identify implications for policy or practice. Improvements in reporting and conduct are essential. Further research on scoping review methodology is needed, particularly the development of a guideline to standardize reporting. The review highlights variability in reporting and conduct, which may affect the reliability and utility of scoping reviews. The results suggest that the methodology used in scoping reviews can be improved, and there is a need for better reporting guidelines. The review also found that knowledge translation activities were underreported, and that consultation exercises were rarely described. The findings emphasize the importance of improving the reporting and conduct of scoping reviews to enhance their utility in informing research agendas and policy decisions.This scoping review aimed to identify papers that described or used scoping review methods, guidelines for reporting scoping reviews, and studies that assessed the quality of reporting of scoping reviews. A systematic search of nine electronic databases and grey literature sources yielded 1525 citations and 874 full-text papers. After screening, 516 articles were included, of which 494 were scoping reviews. These reviews were published between 1999 and 2014, with 45% published after 2012. Most reviews were conducted in North America (53%) or Europe (38%), and 64% were publicly funded. The number of studies included in the reviews ranged from 1 to 2600, with an average of 118. Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology guidance, only 13% of the reviews reported using a protocol, 36% used two reviewers for citation selection, 29% used two reviewers for full-text screening, 30% used two reviewers for data charting, and 43% used a predefined charting form. Most reviews used their findings to identify evidence gaps (85%), provide recommendations for future research (84%), or identify strengths and limitations (69%). However, no guidelines for reporting scoping reviews or studies assessing the quality of reporting were identified. The number of scoping reviews has increased since 2012, and they are used to inform research agendas and identify implications for policy or practice. Improvements in reporting and conduct are essential. Further research on scoping review methodology is needed, particularly the development of a guideline to standardize reporting. The review highlights variability in reporting and conduct, which may affect the reliability and utility of scoping reviews. The results suggest that the methodology used in scoping reviews can be improved, and there is a need for better reporting guidelines. The review also found that knowledge translation activities were underreported, and that consultation exercises were rarely described. The findings emphasize the importance of improving the reporting and conduct of scoping reviews to enhance their utility in informing research agendas and policy decisions.