Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
An evidence map is an overview of a broad research field that describes the volume, nature, and characteristics of research in that field [1]. Evidence maps can indicate research links, gaps, and strengths in a broad clinical context, while systematic reviews focus on a single clinical question [2, 3]. Maps complement systematic reviews by engaging stakeholders to identify and prioritize questions that may be informed by research evidence, highlighting the applicability of research evidence to different populations and contexts, and identifying important gaps that can inform further primary research or systematic reviews [3].
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parkhill et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: