This article discusses the methodology for scoping studies, which are used to review health research evidence. The authors propose recommendations to clarify and enhance the Arksey and O'Malley framework for conducting scoping studies. They suggest that researchers should clearly define the purpose and research question, balance feasibility with the breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process, use an iterative team approach to select studies and extract data, incorporate numerical summaries and qualitative thematic analysis, and consider the implications of study findings for policy, practice, or research. They also recommend consulting with stakeholders as a required component of scoping study methodology. The authors emphasize the need for continued debate and development of scoping study methodology to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings in healthcare research and practice. They also highlight the importance of establishing a common definition and purpose for scoping studies, defining methodological rigor for assessing scoping study quality, and formalizing knowledge translation as a required element of scoping methodology. The authors acknowledge the need for further development of steps for undertaking knowledge translation as part of the scoping study framework. The article also discusses the importance of terminology consistency and the need for a critical appraisal tool for scoping study quality. The authors note that their recommendations are based on their subjective experiences and may not represent the opinions of all scoping study authors. They invite others to trial their recommendations and continue the process of refining and improving this methodology.This article discusses the methodology for scoping studies, which are used to review health research evidence. The authors propose recommendations to clarify and enhance the Arksey and O'Malley framework for conducting scoping studies. They suggest that researchers should clearly define the purpose and research question, balance feasibility with the breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process, use an iterative team approach to select studies and extract data, incorporate numerical summaries and qualitative thematic analysis, and consider the implications of study findings for policy, practice, or research. They also recommend consulting with stakeholders as a required component of scoping study methodology. The authors emphasize the need for continued debate and development of scoping study methodology to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings in healthcare research and practice. They also highlight the importance of establishing a common definition and purpose for scoping studies, defining methodological rigor for assessing scoping study quality, and formalizing knowledge translation as a required element of scoping methodology. The authors acknowledge the need for further development of steps for undertaking knowledge translation as part of the scoping study framework. The article also discusses the importance of terminology consistency and the need for a critical appraisal tool for scoping study quality. The authors note that their recommendations are based on their subjective experiences and may not represent the opinions of all scoping study authors. They invite others to trial their recommendations and continue the process of refining and improving this methodology.