CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 59

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Advancing the methodology of mapping reviews: A scoping review

Khalil, Hanan, Campbell, Fiona, Danial, Katrina, Pollock, Danielle, Munn, Zachary, Welsh, Vivian, Saran, Ashrita, Hoppe, Dimi, Tricco, Andrea C.·2024·Research Synthesis Methods
DOI 10.1002/jrsm.1694
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This scoping review aims to identify and systematically review published mapping reviews to assess their commonality and heterogeneity and determine whether additional efforts should be made to standardise methodology and reporting. The following databases were searched; Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Campbell collaboration database, Social Science Abstracts, Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Following a pilot‐test on a random sample of 20 citations included within title and abstracts, two team members independently completed all screening. Ten articles were piloted at full‐text screening, and then each citation was reviewed independently by two team members. Discrepancies at both stages were resolved through discussion. Following a pilot‐test on a random sample of five relevant full‐text articles, one team member abstracted all the relevant data. Uncertainties in the data abstraction were resolved by another team member. A total of 335 articles were eligible for this scoping review and subsequently included. There was an increasing growth in the number of published mapping reviews over the years from 5 in 2010 to 73 in 2021. Moreover, there was a significant variability in reporting the included mapping reviews including their research question, priori protocol, methodology, data synthesis and reporting. This work has further highlighted the gaps in evidence synthesis methodologies. Further guidance developed by evidence synthesis organisations, such as JBI and Campbell, has the potential to clarify challenges experienced by researchers, given the magnitude of mapping reviews published every year.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jrsm.1694

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Image 1
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 2
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 3
CC-BY · From the PDF
FIGURE 1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis.
FIGURE 1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis.CC-BY · From the PDF
FIGURE 4 Aims stated in the mapping review studies.
FIGURE 4 Aims stated in the mapping review studies.CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 6
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 7
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 8
CC-BY · From the PDF
FIGURE 7 Types of evidence included in the mapping review studies.
FIGURE 7 Types of evidence included in the mapping review studies.CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 10
CC-BY · From the PDF
FIGURE 9 Types of data synthesis included in the mapping review studies.
FIGURE 9 Types of data synthesis included in the mapping review studies.CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 12
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 13
CC-BY · From the PDF
FIGURE 11 Study limitations reported in the mapping review studies.
FIGURE 11 Study limitations reported in the mapping review studies.CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 15
CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. 10.1186/s13643-023-02178-5 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Booth A, 2016, EVIDENT Guidance for Reviewing the Evidence: a Compendium of Methodological Literature and Websites, 13
  3. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.012 · DOI
  4. 10.1186/s13750-016-0059-6 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.05.015 · DOI
  6. 10.11124/JBIES-21-00483 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.4073/cmdp.2018.2 · DOI
  8. 10.1111/wvn.12144 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Munn Z, 2023, The dark side of rapid reviews: a retreat from systematic approaches and the need for clear expectations and reporting, Am Coll Phys, 176, 266
  10. 10.1186/1471-2288-11-92 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.002 · DOI
  12. 10.1136/bmj.c4739 · DOI
  13. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001009 · DOI
  14. 10.1177/1355819619841647 · DOI
  15. Pollock A, 2017, Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects, Res Involv Engag, 3, 1
  16. Chambers D, 2020, Results of mapping review, Implement Interv Reduce Prevent Hospital Admis Cardiovasc Resp Cond Evid Map Realist Synth, 8, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 59

Metadata

Authors
Khalil, H., Campbell, F., Danial, K., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Welsh, V., Saran, A., Hoppe, D., & Tricco, A. C.
Affiliations
  • La Trobe University School of Psychology and Public Health, Department of Public Health Melbourne Australia
  • Population Health Sciences Institute Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne UK
  • Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences Monash University Melbourne Australia
  • Health Evidence Synthesis Recommendations and Impact, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences University of Adelaide Adelaide Australia
  • Bruyère Research Institute Ottawa Ontario Canada
  • Campbell South Asia New Delhi India
  • Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto Toronto Canada
ORCID
Venue
Research Synthesis Methods
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-01-02
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
384-397
ISSN
  • 1759-2879
  • 1759-2887
DOI
10.1002/jrsm.1694
Cited by
59
References
12
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Advancing the methodology of mapping reviews: A scoping review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jrsm.1694
The paper
Khalil, H., Campbell, F., Danial, K., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Welsh, V., Saran, A., Hoppe, D., & Tricco, A. C. (2024). Advancing the methodology of mapping reviews: A scoping review. Research Synthesis Methods. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1694