↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
241 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
472 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products
Published in
Systematic Reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

The 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. We 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. Thirty-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. The 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. Although an a priori protocol was developed, no registration was completed; this review did not fit the PROSPERO format.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 89 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 472 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 465 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 83 18%
Student > Master 65 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 31 7%
Other 30 6%
Other 127 27%
Unknown 87 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 117 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 48 10%
Social Sciences 48 10%
Psychology 36 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 4%
Other 96 20%
Unknown 110 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 December 2020.
All research outputs
#474,318
of 20,927,597 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#57
of 1,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,960
of 287,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,927,597 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 287,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.