The authors of this article call for clarity in the definition, methods, and reporting of scoping reviews. Scoping reviews are a type of knowledge synthesis that aims to map key concepts, types of evidence, and research gaps in a defined area. They are increasingly popular but lack consistency in terminology, definition, methodology, and reporting, which limits their potential. The authors propose three recommendations: (1) consistent use of the terms 'scoping review' or 'scoping study'; (2) a clear definition of scoping reviews as a form of knowledge synthesis aimed at exploring research questions and mapping key concepts, types of evidence, and research gaps; and (3) the use of the Arksey and O'Malley framework, enhanced by Levac et al, for conducting scoping reviews. The authors also call for the development of reporting guidance for scoping reviews, similar to the EQUATOR network's efforts for systematic reviews. This guidance would help improve the reproducibility, completeness, and transparency of scoping reviews. The authors conclude that scoping reviews are an important method for synthesizing evidence in healthcare research and practice, but variability in labeling, definition, methodology, and reporting currently limits their potential. They advocate for consistent labeling, definition, and methodology to advance the field of scoping reviews.The authors of this article call for clarity in the definition, methods, and reporting of scoping reviews. Scoping reviews are a type of knowledge synthesis that aims to map key concepts, types of evidence, and research gaps in a defined area. They are increasingly popular but lack consistency in terminology, definition, methodology, and reporting, which limits their potential. The authors propose three recommendations: (1) consistent use of the terms 'scoping review' or 'scoping study'; (2) a clear definition of scoping reviews as a form of knowledge synthesis aimed at exploring research questions and mapping key concepts, types of evidence, and research gaps; and (3) the use of the Arksey and O'Malley framework, enhanced by Levac et al, for conducting scoping reviews. The authors also call for the development of reporting guidance for scoping reviews, similar to the EQUATOR network's efforts for systematic reviews. This guidance would help improve the reproducibility, completeness, and transparency of scoping reviews. The authors conclude that scoping reviews are an important method for synthesizing evidence in healthcare research and practice, but variability in labeling, definition, methodology, and reporting currently limits their potential. They advocate for consistent labeling, definition, and methodology to advance the field of scoping reviews.