Evidence maps and evidence gaps: evidence review mapping as a method for collating and appraising evidence reviews to inform research and policy

• Main Authors: Bethan C. O’Leary, Paul Woodcock, Michel J. Kaiser, Andrew S. Pullin
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2017-07-01
• Series: Environmental Evidence
• Subjects: CEESAT; Evidence-based policy; Evidence review map; Gap analysis; Review evaluation; Research synthesis
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13750-017-0096-9

Abstract Evidence reviews are a key mechanism for incorporating extensive, complex and specialised evidence into policy and practice, and in guiding future research. However, evidence reviews vary in scope and methodological rigour, creating several risks for decision-makers: decisions may be informed by less reliable reviews; apparently conflicting interpretations of evidence may obfuscate decisions; and low quality reviews may create the perception that a topic has been adequately addressed, deterring new syntheses (cryptic evidence gaps). We present a new approach, evidence review mapping, designed to produce a visual representation and critical assessment of the review landscape for a particular environmental topic or question. By systematically selecting and describing the scope and rigour of each review, this helps guide non-specialists to the most relevant and methodologically reliable reviews. The map can also direct future research through the identification of evidence gaps (whether cryptic or otherwise) and redundancy (multiple reviews on similar questions). We consider evidence review mapping a complementary approach to systematic reviews and systematic maps of primary literature and an important tool for facilitating evidence-based decision-making and research efficiency.