Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26864942›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2016

What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products.

Isomi M Miake-Lye, Susanne Hempel, Roberta Shanman, Paul G Shekelle

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 317 papers, 50 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
317citing papers in PubMed, 50 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

317 citing papers in PubMed, 50 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

257 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Isomi M Miake-LyeEvidence-based Synthesis Program (ESP) Center, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, 11301 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA, 90073, USA. isomi.miake-lye@va.gov.
Susanne HempelSouthern California Evidence-based Practice Center, RAND Corporation, 1776 Main St, Santa Monica, CA, 90401, USA.
Roberta ShanmanSouthern California Evidence-based Practice Center, RAND Corporation, 1776 Main St, Santa Monica, CA, 90401, USA.
Paul G ShekelleEvidence-based Synthesis Program (ESP) Center, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, 11301 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA, 90073, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe need for systematic methods for reviewing evidence is continuously increasing. Evidence mapping is one emerging method. There are no authoritative recommendations for what constitutes an evidence map or what methods should be used, and anecdotal evidence suggests heterogeneity in both. Our objectives are to identify published evidence maps and to compare and contrast the presented definitions of evidence mapping, the domains used to classify data in evidence maps, and the form the evidence map takes.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of publications that presented results with a process termed "evidence mapping" or included a figure called an "evidence map." We identified publications from searches of ten databases through 8/21/2015, reference mining, and consulting topic experts. We abstracted the research question, the unit of analysis, the search methods and search period covered, and the country of origin. Data were narratively synthesized.

resultsThirty-nine publications met inclusion criteria. Published evidence maps varied in their definition and the form of the evidence map. Of the 31 definitions provided, 67 % described the purpose as identification of gaps and 58 % referenced a stakeholder engagement process or user-friendly product. All evidence maps explicitly used a systematic approach to evidence synthesis. Twenty-six publications referred to a figure or table explicitly called an "evidence map," eight referred to an online database as the evidence map, and five stated they used a mapping methodology but did not present a visual depiction of the evidence.

conclusionsThe principal conclusion of our evaluation of studies that call themselves "evidence maps" is that the implied definition of what constitutes an evidence map is a systematic search of a broad field to identify gaps in knowledge and/or future research needs that presents results in a user-friendly format, often a visual figure or graph, or a searchable database. Foundational work is needed to better standardize the methods and products of an evidence map so that researchers and policymakers will know what to expect of this new type of evidence review. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Although an a priori protocol was developed, no registration was completed; this review did not fit the PROSPERO format.

Indexed as

Review Literature as TopicHumans

Identifiers

PMID26864942
PMCPMC4750281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.