CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meta-epidemiology and reporting characteristics of mapping reviews: a scoping review

Li, Yanfei, Ghogomu, Elizabeth, Khalil, Hanan, Hui, Xu, E, Fenfen, Campbell, Fiona, Li, Xiuxia, Gaarder, Marie, Nduku, Promise M., White, Howard, Hou, Liangying, Chen, Nan, Xu, Shenggang, Ma, Ning, Hu, Xiaoye, Liu, Xian, Welch, Vivian, Yang, Kehu·2025·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111648
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives To investigate the meta-epidemiology and reporting characteristics of mapping reviews. Study design and setting We conducted a scoping review of a sample of recent mapping reviews (2022-2023) by searching nine electronic databases and eleven institutional websites up to January 2024. A 28-item reporting checklist, developed by our team and based on existing guidance and methodological studies of mapping reviews, was employed to assess reporting characteristics. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) was calculated based on the number of studies that reported each specified reporting item. Results A total of 451 mapping reviews were included, with 197 published in 2022 and 254 in 2023. The USA published the most studies (80, 17.74%) and the University of London being the most active institution (23, 5.10%). Barbosa JLV from Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos authored the highest number of studies, with significant collaborations primarily between Chinese and Canadian teams. The studies spanned 11 fields within health and social sciences, Environmental Evidence and Campbell Systematic Reviews published the most studies. A random sample of 200 studies was further assessed for reporting characteristics, where items such as title, author, abstract, background, conclusions, acknowledgments, contributions of authors, declarations of interest, and sources of support were reported by over 50% of the studies. Median number of studies reporting items related to methods, re…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111648

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Campbell, 2023, Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different— the “Big Picture” review family, Syst Rev, 12, 45, 10.1186/s13643-023-02178-5 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Grant, 2009, A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies, Health Info Libr J, 26, 91, 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x · DOI · Paper page
  3. Katz, 2003, The evidence base for complementary and alternative medicine: methods of Evidence Mapping with application to CAM. Alternative therapies in health and, Medicine, 9, 22
  4. Khalil, 2024, Advancing the methodology of mapping reviews: a scoping review, Res Synth Methods, 15, 384, 10.1002/jrsm.1694 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Shea, 2017, Amstar 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both, BMJ, 358, j4008, 10.1136/bmj.j4008 · DOI · Paper page
  6. White, 2021, The strategic use of evidence and gap maps to build evidence architecture, 10.51744/CMWP5 · DOI
  7. Saran, 2018, Evidence and gap maps: a comparison of different approaches, Campbell Syst Rev, 14, 1, 10.4073/cmdp.2018.2 · DOI
  8. Snilstveit, 2016, Evidence & Gap Maps: a tool for promoting evidence informed policy and strategic research agendas, J Clin Epidemiol, 79, 120, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.05.015 · DOI
  9. Li, 2020, Generation and reporting of evidence mapping (in Chinese), Chin J Evidence Based Med, 20, 6
  10. White, 2020, Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map, Campbell systematic reviews, 16, 10.1002/cl2.1125 · DOI
  11. Moher, 2010, Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines, PLoS Med, 7, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Vernooij, 2017, Reporting items for updated clinical guidelines: checklist for the reporting of updated guidelines (CheckUp), PLoS Med, 14, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002207 · DOI
  13. Li, 2024, The development of PRITEM reporting guideline for mapping reviews, Open Sci Framework
  14. Yang, 2018, Evidence-based social science: the origin, development and prospects (in Chinese), Libr Inf, 3, 1
  15. Hunniford, 2021, Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews, PLoS Biol, 19, 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001177 · DOI
  16. Van Eck, 2010, Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping, Scientometrics, 84, 523, 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Wolffe, 2020, A survey of systematic evidence mapping practice and the case for Knowledge graphs in environmental health and toxicology, Toxicol Sci, 175, 35, 10.1093/toxsci/kfaa025 · DOI
  18. Miake-Lye, 2016, What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products, Syst Rev, 5, 28, 10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x · DOI · Paper page
  19. Haddaway, 2016, The benefits of systematic mapping to evidence-based environmental management, Ambio, 45, 613, 10.1007/s13280-016-0773-x · DOI
  20. Gui, 2019, Globalization of science and international scientific collaboration: a network perspective, Geoforum, 105, 1, 10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.06.017 · DOI
  21. Khalil, 2022, Differentiating between mapping reviews and scoping reviews in the evidence synthesis ecosystem, J Clin Epidemiol, 149, 175, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.012 · DOI
  22. Alahdab, 2019, Evidence maps: a tool to guide research agenda setting, BMJ Evid Based Med, 24, 209, 10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111137 · DOI
  23. Bates, 2007, Systematic Maps to support the evidence base in social care, Evid Policy A J Res Debate Pract, 3, 539, 10.1332/174426407782516484 · DOI
  24. Hetrick, 2010, Evidence mapping: illustrating an emerging methodology to improve evidence-based practice in youth mental health, J Eval Clin Pract, 16, 1025, 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01112.x · DOI
  25. Lam, 2019, Low-calorie sweeteners and health outcomes: a demonstration of rapid evidence mapping (rEM), Environ Int, 123, 451, 10.1016/j.envint.2018.11.070 · DOI
  26. Perryman, 2016, Mapping studies, J Med Libr Assoc, 104, 79, 10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.014 · DOI
  27. Simonovich, 2018, Re-envisioning evidence gap maps with qualitative research, Nurs Sci Q, 31, 325, 10.1177/0894318418792882 · DOI
  28. Posso, 2024, Prospero - reasons for its existence and why a systematic review and/or meta-analysis should be registered, Cirugia espanola, 102, 386, 10.1016/j.ciresp.2024.04.001 · DOI
  29. Soaita, 2020, A methodological quest for systematic literature mapping, Int J Hous Pol, 20, 320, 10.1080/19491247.2019.1649040 · DOI
  30. Wikoff, 2020, Facilitation of risk assessment with evidence-based methods - a framework for use of systematic mapping and systematic reviews in determining hazard, developing toxicity values, and characterizing uncertainty, Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 118, 10.1016/j.yrtph.2020.104790 · DOI
  31. Wolffe, 2019, Systematic evidence maps as a novel tool to support evidence-based decision-making in chemicals policy and risk management, Environ Int, 130, 10.1016/j.envint.2019.05.065 · DOI
  32. Bayliss, 2016, Updating and amending systematic reviews and systematic maps in environmental management, Environ Evid, 5, 1
  33. Shemilt, 2021, Using automation to produce a ‘living map’ of the COVID-19 research literature, J Eahil, 17, 11, 10.32384/jeahil17469 · DOI
  34. Thayer, 2023, Systematic evidence map (SEM) template: report format and methods used for the US EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program, Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value (PPRTV) program, and other "fit for purpose" literature-based human health an, Environ Int, 176, 10.1016/j.envint.2023.107929 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Li, Y., Ghogomu, E., Khalil, H., Hui, X., E, F., Campbell, F., Li, X., Gaarder, M., Nduku, P. M., White, H., Hou, L., Chen, N., Xu, S., Ma, N., Hu, X., Liu, X., Welch, V., & Yang, K.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-03
Volume
179
Pages
111648
ISSN
0895-4356
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111648
Cited by
2
References
11
Language
en
Licence
Funders
National Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences (19ZDA142)

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