Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36918977›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2023

Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different- the "Big Picture" review family.

Fiona Campbell, Andrea C Tricco, Zachary Munn, Danielle Pollock, Ashrita Saran, Anthea Sutton, Howard White, Hanan Khalil

Erratum issuedFull text read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 158 papers, 28 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
158citing papers in PubMed, 28 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

158 citing papers in PubMed, 28 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. Patient navigation programmes for symptomatic lung cancer patients: a scoping review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025
    Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Fiona CampbellPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK. fiona.campbell1@newcastle.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4141-8863
Andrea C TriccoKnowledge Translation Program of the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto in the Dalla Lana School of Public Health & Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Toronto, Canada.
Zachary MunnJBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Danielle PollockJBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Ashrita SaranInternational Development Coordinating Group, Campbell Collaboration, Oslo, Norway.
Anthea SuttonScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Howard WhiteEvaluation and Evidence Synthesis, Global Development Network, New Delhi, India.
Hanan KhalilSchool of Psychology and Public Health, Department of Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Evidence GapsResearch ReportResearch DesignScoping Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID36918977
PMCPMC10014395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read10
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.