ArticleResearch synthesis methods2025
Methodology for mapping reviews, evidence maps, and gap maps.
Article in Research synthesis methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Progress in the Synthesis of Evidence in Glaucoma: What We Know and the Gaps that Remain.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
- PSMA-targeted radioligand therapy in prostate cancer: evidence hierarchy, platform maturity of ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617, and the clinical differentiation challenge for emerging radionuclides.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Review
- Methods and evidence in economic evaluations of modern radiotherapy: a systematic mapping review protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- A data-driven method for research trend analysis in a scientific discipline: Application to the journal of biomedical informatics.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2026Article
- Engaging patients throughout the continuum of implementation science and practice: adapted evidence mapping review and practical guide for clinicians and researchers.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Article
- Emergency consent pathways in acute ischemic stroke trials: determinants, consequences, and stakeholder attitudes-an evidence-mapping study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- PROTOCOL: Evidence and Gap Map of Climate Change Adaptation Interventions for Enhancing Food Security and Livelihood in Sub-Saharan Africa.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Telehealth for Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare: Evidence Map of Effectiveness, Patient and Provider Experiences and Preferences, and Patient Engagement Strategies.Clinics and practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mapping reviews are valuable tools for synthesizing and visualizing research evidence, providing a comprehensive overview of studies within a specific field. Their visual approach enhances accessibility, enabling researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to efficiently identify key findings, trends, and knowledge gaps. These reviews are particularly significant in guiding future research, informing funding decisions, and shaping evidence-based policymaking. In environmental science-similar to health and social sciences-mapping reviews play a crucial role in identifying effective conservation strategies, tracking interventions, and supporting targeted programs.Unlike systematic reviews, which assess intervention effectiveness, mapping reviews focus on broad research questions, aiming to chart the existing evidence on a given topic. They use structured methodologies to identify patterns, gaps, and trends, often employing visual tools to enhance data accessibility. A well-defined scope, guided by inclusion and exclusion criteria, ensures a transparent study selection process. Comprehensive search strategies, often spanning multiple databases, maximize evidence capture. Effective screening, combining automated and manual processes, ensures relevance, while data extraction emphasizes high-level categories such as study design and population demographics. Advanced software tools, including EPPI-Reviewer and MindMeister, support data extraction and visualization, with evidence gap maps highlighting robust areas and research voids.Despite their advantages, mapping reviews present challenges. The categorization and coding of studies can introduce subjective biases, and the process demands substantial resources. Automation and artificial intelligence offer promising solutions, improving efficiency while addressing integration and multilingual limitations. As methodological advancements continue, interdisciplinary collaboration will be essential to fully realize the potential of mapping reviews across scientific disciplines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.