La Trobe University, School of Psychology and Public Health, Department of Public Health, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia.
Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Epidemiology Division and Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Sep;149:175-182. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.012. Epub 2022 May 27.
Scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and evidence map methodologies are increasingly used by researchers. The objective of this article is to outline the main difference between these types of evidence synthesis to improve their conduct.
This article summarizes the key issues facing reviewers, who conduct scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and evidence maps and those who use the results and may engage in consultations during their development.
Several differences exist between the methodologies, and these are in their protocol development, scope, inclusion criteria, data extraction, reporting, and use. Mapping reviews are mainly driven by questions of effectiveness of a particular intervention and hence they use the Participant Intervention Comparator Outcome Study type format similar to systematic reviews of effectiveness. Scoping reviews mostly use the Participant, context, concept (PCC) format, where they map a concept of interest relevant to a particular population in a specific setting and context. Data extraction is limited by only coding of studies and intervention characteristics in evidence maps. The results of the mapping reviews can be used inform research priorities and research funding, whereas, scoping reviews result may be used to inform policy development by clarifying key concepts and methods, and further research.
We recommend authors who are planning to undertake scoping reviews confirm that their research question can be appropriately answered using a scoping review methodology, however, for broader research questions without the need for an in-depth analysis of the information, we recommend authors to consider mapping reviews.
范围综述、映射综述和证据图谱方法越来越多地被研究人员使用。本文的目的是概述这些证据综合方法的主要区别，以提高其实施质量。
本文总结了进行范围综述、映射综述和证据图谱的评审者以及在其开发过程中使用结果并可能进行咨询的人员所面临的关键问题。
这些方法之间存在一些差异，主要体现在方案制定、范围、纳入标准、数据提取、报告和使用方面。映射综述主要由特定干预措施的有效性问题驱动，因此它们使用类似于系统评价有效性的参与者-干预-比较-结局研究类型格式。范围综述主要使用参与者、背景、概念（PCC）格式，其中他们在特定背景和环境中映射与特定人群相关的感兴趣概念。数据提取仅限于对研究和干预特征进行编码，证据图谱中也是如此。映射综述的结果可用于为研究优先级和研究资金提供信息，而范围综述的结果可用于通过阐明关键概念和方法以及进一步研究为政策制定提供信息。
我们建议计划进行范围综述的作者确认他们的研究问题可以通过使用范围综述方法得到适当回答，但是对于不需要对信息进行深入分析的更广泛的研究问题，我们建议作者考虑使用映射综述。
