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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“For the latter, mapping reviews and evidence-gap maps are now considered a separate type of evidence synthesis method requiring their own reporting guidance [35], although included in the ''big picture'' review family, along with ScRs [22,36,37].”
From Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
In the citing paper
“Important methodological advancements have emerged since PRISMA-ScR 2018, including automation and data extraction, which need to be incorporated into this update and reflected in new reporting items.”
From Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
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
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · Cited by 108,283
Self-citationPRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., et al. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0850 · Cited by 43,565
Self-citationThe PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906 · Cited by 11,748
Self-citationUpdated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews
Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020) · JBI Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00167 · Cited by 9,046
Self-citation(2020) · JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.46658/jbimes-20-12 · Cited by 2,545
Self-citationRecommendations for the Extraction, Analysis, and Presentation of Results in Scoping Reviews
Pollock, D., Peters, M. D. J., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Alexander, L., Tricco, A. C., Evans, C., de Moraes, É. B., Godfrey, C. M., Pieper, D., et al. (2023) · JBI Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.11124/jbies-22-00123 · Cited by 1,975
Self-citationThe ethics of AI in health care: A mapping review
Morley, J., Machado, C. C. V., Burr, C., Cowls, J., Joshi, I., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2020) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113172 · Cited by 1,105
Miake-Lye, I. M., Hempel, S., Shanman, R., & Shekelle, P. G. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x · Cited by 660
Systematic Reviews: Constructing a Search Strategy and Searching for Evidence
Aromataris, E., & Riitano, D. (2014) · AJN, American Journal of Nursing · doi:10.1097/01.naj.0000446779.99522.f6 · Cited by 523
Kohl, C., McIntosh, E. J., Unger, S., Haddaway, N. R., Kecke, S., Schiemann, J., & Wilhelm, R. (2018) · Environmental Evidence · doi:10.1186/s13750-018-0115-5 · Cited by 471
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- 10.1186/s13643-023-02178-5 · DOI · Paper page
- Booth A, 2016, EVIDENT Guidance for Reviewing the Evidence: a Compendium of Methodological Literature and Websites, 13
- 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.012 · DOI
- 10.1186/s13750-016-0059-6 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.05.015 · DOI
- 10.11124/JBIES-21-00483 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.4073/cmdp.2018.2 · DOI
- 10.1111/wvn.12144 · DOI · Paper page
- 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
- 10.1186/1471-2288-11-92 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.002 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.c4739 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001009 · DOI
- 10.1177/1355819619841647 · DOI
- Pollock A, 2017, Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects, Res Involv Engag, 3, 1
- 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
Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review
Tricco, A. C., Robinson, E., Straus, S. E., Colquhoun, H., Godfrey, C. M., Moher, D., Munn, Z., Pollock, D., Logan, S., Elsman, E. B. M., et al. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112314 · Cited by 9
Self-citation
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
- Venue
- Research Synthesis Methods
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2024-01-02
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 384-397
- ISSN
- 1759-2879
- 1759-2887
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 12
- Language
- en
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
