CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 345

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different— the “Big Picture” review family

Campbell, Fiona, Tricco, Andrea C., Munn, Zachary, Pollock, Danielle, Saran, Ashrita, Sutton, Anthea, White, Howard, Khalil, Hanan·2023·Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1186/s13643-023-02178-5PMC PMC10014395
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and evidence and gap maps are evidence synthesis methodologies that address broad research questions, aiming to describe a bigger picture rather than address a specific question about intervention effectiveness. They are being increasingly used to support a range of purposes including guiding research priorities and decision making. There is however a confusing array of terminology used to describe these different approaches. In this commentary, we aim to describe where there are differences in terminology and where this equates to differences in meaning. We demonstrate the different theoretical routes that underpin these differences. We suggest ways in which the approaches of scoping and mapping reviews may differ in order to guide consistency in reporting and method. We propose that mapping and scoping reviews and evidence and gap maps have similarities that unite them as a group but also have unique differences. Understanding these similarities and differences is important for informing the development of methods used to undertake and report these types of evidence synthesis.

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 · 10.1186/s13643-023-02178-5

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 13 references

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, et al. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J. 2019;36(3):202–22. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Khalil H, Peters M, Godfrey CM, et al. An evidence-based approach to scoping reviews. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing. 2016;13(2):118–23. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Tricco AC, Antony J, Soobiah C, et al. Knowledge synthesis methods for integrating qualitative and quantitative data: a scoping review reveals poor operationalization of the methodological steps. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;73:29–35. · DOI
  4. Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(12):1291–4. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Khalil H, Tamara L, Rada G, et al. Challenges of evidence synthesis during the 2020 COVID pandemic: a scoping review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;142:10–8. · DOI
  6. Littell JH. Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews and other evidence synthesis products. Campbell Syst Rev. 2018;14(1):1–21. · DOI
  7. Anderson S, Allen P, Peckham S, et al. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health research policy and systems. 2008;6(1):1–12. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Implementation. 2015;13(3):141–6.
  9. Lukersmith MS, Millington M, Salvador-Carulla L. What is case management? A scoping and mapping review. International journal of integrated care 2016;16(4) · DOI
  10. Fernandez-Sotos P, Torio I, Fernandez-Caballero A, et al. Social cognition remediation interventions: a systematic mapping review. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(6): e0218720. · DOI
  11. James KL, Randall NP, Haddaway NR. A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental evidence. 2016;5(1):1–13. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Embrett M, Sim SM, Caldwell HA, et al. Barriers to and strategies to address COVID-19 testing hesitancy: a rapid scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1–10. · DOI
  13. Foster CR, Campbell F, Blank L, et al. A scoping review of the experience of implementing population testing for SARS-CoV-2. Public Health. 2021;198:22–9. · DOI
  14. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):1–9. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Katz DL, Williams A-l, Girard C, et al. The evidence base for complementary and alternative medicine: methods of evidence mapping with application to CAM. Alternative therapies in health and medicine 2003;9(4):22–37.
  16. Saran A, White H. Evidence and gap maps: a comparison of different approaches. Campbell Syst Rev. 2018;14(1):1–38. · DOI
  17. Snilstveit B, Vojtkova M, Bhavsar A, et al. Evidence gap maps-a tool for promoting evidence-informed policy and prioritizing future research. World bank policy research working paper 2013(6725) · DOI
  18. Malhotra SK, White H, Dela Cruz NAO, et al. Studies of the effectiveness of transport sector interventions in low-and middle-income countries: an evidence and gap map. Campbell Syst Rev. 2021;17(4): e1203.
  19. Saran A, White H, Kuper H. Evidence and gap map of studies assessing the effectiveness of interventions for people with disabilities in low‐and middle‐income countries. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2020;16(1):e1070. · DOI
  20. Campbell F, Chambers D, Llewellyen J. Wong R. Employment and Health: An Evidence and Gap Map. Campbell Syt Revs (in press). 2023. · DOI
  21. Mikton C, Beaulieu M, Yon Y, et al. PROTOCOL: Global elder abuse: a megaa me of systematic reviews on prevalence, consequences, risk and protective factors and interventions. Campbell Syst Rev. 2022;18(2): e1227.
  22. Munn Z, Pollock D, Khalil H, et al. What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20(4):950–2. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-21-00483[publishedOnlineFirst:2022/03/08]. · DOI
  23. Kelly-Blake K, Garrison NA, Fletcher FE, et al. Rationales for expanding minority physician representation in the workforce: a scoping review. Med Educ. 2018;52(9):925–35. · DOI
  24. White H, Albers B, Gaarder M, et al. Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map. Campbell Syst Rev. 2020;16(4): e1125.
  25. Olson AW, Stratton TP, Isetts BJ, et al. Seeing the elephant: a systematic scoping review and comparison of patient-centeredness conceptualizations from three seminal perspectives. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2021;14:973. · DOI
  26. White H, Lubanga T, Rathinam F, et al. Development evaluations in Uganda 2000–2018. 2021 · DOI
  27. White H. The strategic use of evidence and gap maps to build the evidence architecture. In: Working CM, ed. London and Oxford: Centre of Excellence for Development Impact and Learning (CEDIL), 2021. · DOI
  28. Amog K, Courvoisier M, Mak M, et al. The web-based “right review” tool asks reviewers simple questions to suggest methods from 41 knowledge synthesis methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;147:42–51. · DOI
  29. Baxter DG, Hilbrecht M, Wheaton CT. A mapping review of research on gambling harm in three regulatory environments. Harm Reduct J. 2019;16(1):1–19. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 345

Metadata

Authors
Campbell, F., Tricco, A. C., Munn, Z., Pollock, D., Saran, A., Sutton, A., White, H., & Khalil, H.
ORCID
Campbell, Fiona
Venue
Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-03-15
Volume
12
Issue
1
ISSN
2046-4053
DOI
10.1186/s13643-023-02178-5
PMC
PMC10014395
Cited by
345
References
13
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2023-04-01)
Licence

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