Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41631138›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2026

A comparative scoping review approach: identifying the intersection of carbon, biodiversity, and water offsetting.

Felice Diekel, Rosalie Arendt, Markus Berger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Felice DiekelUniversity of Twente, Multidisciplinary Water Management, Faculty of Engineering Technology, Department of Civil Engineering & Management, Enschede, the Netherlands.
Rosalie ArendtUniversity of Twente, Multidisciplinary Water Management, Faculty of Engineering Technology, Department of Civil Engineering & Management, Enschede, the Netherlands.
Markus BergerUniversity of Twente, Multidisciplinary Water Management, Faculty of Engineering Technology, Department of Civil Engineering & Management, Enschede, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental and climate policies, as well as the knowledge underpinning them, are often developed in isolation. This is evident in offsetting research and policy, which tend to address carbon, biodiversity, and water as separate issues. This paper presents the development of an adapted scoping review methodology to compare these three distinct bodies of literature within a unified framework, which also allows for the introduction of the emerging water offsetting literature. The approach ensures comparability across datasets of relevant literature while addressing the challenge of managing large volumes of literature within time and resource constraints. It provides a practical solution for managing diverse bodies of literature in scoping reviews, enabling a holistic understanding of the interrelationships among carbon, biodiversity, and water offsetting. Key elements of the method include:•Applying a consistent approach across all three datasets, while accommodating the specificities of each.•Utilizing the machine learning tool ASReviewer to streamline the screening process, alongside a pilot screening phase to establish consistent inclusion criteria.•Combining quantitative bibliometric analysis with qualitative thematic analysis.

Indexed as

BiodiversityCarbonClimate policyComparative scoping reviewEnvironmental policyOffsettingScoping reviewWater

Identifiers

PMID41631138
PMCPMC12860679

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.