证据和差距图在方法上有哪些特点?系统综述和证据与差距图

Mary Fredlund, Morwenna Rogers, Noreen Orr, Dylan Kneale, Kate Allen, Jo Thompson Coon
{"title":"证据和差距图在方法上有哪些特点?系统综述和证据与差距图","authors":"Mary Fredlund,&nbsp;Morwenna Rogers,&nbsp;Noreen Orr,&nbsp;Dylan Kneale,&nbsp;Kate Allen,&nbsp;Jo Thompson Coon","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion/Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12096","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What are the methodological characteristics of evidence and gap maps? A systematic review and evidence and gap map\",\"authors\":\"Mary Fredlund,&nbsp;Morwenna Rogers,&nbsp;Noreen Orr,&nbsp;Dylan Kneale,&nbsp;Kate Allen,&nbsp;Jo Thompson Coon\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cesm.12096\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>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.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>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.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>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.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Discussion/Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>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.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"volume\":\"2 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12096\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.12096\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.12096","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言 明确用于制作证据与差距图(EGMs)的方法的特点,将突出需要开发方法的领域,以确保这些日益增多的工具是按照最佳实践制作的,从而保证其质量和效用。本文旨在描述发布 EGMs 研究的主要方法特征的范围、性质和可变性。 方法 我们遵循事先编写的协议,并参考 PRISMA 和 MECCIR 指南进行系统性综述。我们从 2010 年起在九个数据库中搜索了任何学科的研究,这些研究都包含了制作 EGM 所用方法的详细信息。搜索结果由两名审稿人独立筛选,随后根据预定义的标准提取和管理数据。我们将这些数据与发表年份和研究领域这两个主要维度进行了对比。我们遵循既定的方法绘制证据图,包括开发地图框架和互动地图过滤器的过程。在此过程中,我们寻求利益相关者的意见和参与。 结果 我们发现了来自九个不同研究领域的 145 项研究,其中健康研究占 67%。我们发现了 11 种地图设计,其中气泡图是 2019 年以前最常见的设计,此后一直是矩阵地图设计。47.7%的研究有利益相关者的参与,48.35%的研究表示发现差距是其工作的目标,42%的研究报告了发布或注册协议,只有9.39%的研究提到了更新证据地图/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、差距的概念化和更新地图的实践。术语含糊不清、数据可视化的灵活性以及缺乏报告细节等问题也是编制 EGM 的研究需要进一步考虑的方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What are the methodological characteristics of evidence and gap maps? A systematic review and evidence and gap map

Introduction

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Methodological and reporting quality of systematic and rapid reviews on human mpox and their utility during a public health emergency Issue Information “Interest-holders”: A new term to replace “stakeholders” in the context of health research and policy Empowering the future of evidence-based healthcare: The Cochrane Early Career Professionals Network Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1