Fredlund Mary, Rogers Morwenna, Orr Noreen, Kneale Dylan, Allen Kate, Thompson Coon Jo
NIHR Applied Research Collaboration South West Peninsula, University of Exeter Medical School University of Exeter Exeter Devon UK.
University College London London UK.
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2024 Aug 5;2(8):e12096. doi: 10.1002/cesm.12096. eCollection 2024 Aug.
Clarity on the characteristics of methods used to produce evidence and gap maps (EGMs) will highlight areas where method development is needed to ensure these increasingly produced tools are made following best practice to assure their quality and utility. This paper aims to describe the range, nature and variability of key methodological characteristics of studies publishing EGMs.
We followed a protocol, written a-prior and informed by PRISMA and MECCIR guidelines for undertaking systematic reviews. We searched nine data bases, from 2010, for studies across any discipline that included details of their methods used to produce an EGM. Search results were screened by two reviewers independently and the subsequent data was extracted and managed according to predefined criteria. We mapped these together with the year of publication and the area of research as the two primary dimensions. We followed established methods for mapping the evidence, including the process of developing the map framework and the filters for our interactive map. We sought input and involvement from stakeholders during this process.
We found 145 studies from nine distinct research areas, with health research accounting for 67%. There were 11 map designs found, of these bubble plots were the most common design, before 2019, since then it has been a matrix map design. Stakeholders were involved in 47.7% of studies, 48.35% of studies stated finding gaps was an aim of their work, 42% reported publishing or registering a protocol and only 9.39% of studies mentioned a plan to update their evidence maps/EGMs.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Key areas of methodological development relate to: the involvement of stakeholders, the conceptualization of gaps and the practices for updating maps. The issues of ambiguity in terminology, the flexibility of visualizations of the data and the lack of reporting detail were other aspects that needs further consideration in studies producing an EGM.
明确用于生成证据和差距地图（EGM）的方法的特征，将凸显需要进行方法开发的领域，以确保这些日益增多的工具遵循最佳实践来制作，从而保证其质量和实用性。本文旨在描述发表EGM的研究的关键方法学特征的范围、性质和变异性。
我们遵循了一个预先编写的方案，该方案参考了PRISMA和MECCIR进行系统评价的指南。我们从2010年开始在九个数据库中搜索任何学科的研究，这些研究包含其用于生成EGM的方法的详细信息。搜索结果由两名评审员独立筛选，随后的数据根据预定义标准进行提取和管理。我们将这些与出版年份和研究领域一起映射为两个主要维度。我们遵循既定的证据映射方法，包括开发地图框架的过程和交互式地图的筛选器。在此过程中，我们寻求利益相关者的意见和参与。
我们从九个不同的研究领域中找到了145项研究，其中健康研究占67%。发现了11种地图设计，其中气泡图在2019年之前是最常见的设计，此后则是矩阵图设计。47.7%的研究有利益相关者参与，48.35%的研究表示发现差距是其工作目标，42%的研究报告了发表或注册方案，只有9.39%的研究提到了更新其证据地图/EGM的计划。
讨论/结论：方法学发展的关键领域涉及：利益相关者的参与、差距的概念化以及地图更新的实践。术语的模糊性问题、数据可视化的灵活性以及报告细节的缺乏是在生成EGM的研究中需要进一步考虑的其他方面。
