Navigate the links below to jump to a specific section of the page:

• Definition
• When is a Mapping Review methodology appropriate?
• Outline of Stages
• Methods and Guidance
• Examples of Mapping Reviews
• Supplementary Resources

According to Booth (2016), "a mapping review aims at categorizing, classifying, characterizing patterns, trends or themes in evidence production or publication" (p.14). Grant & Booth (2009) add that the point in conducting a mapping review is to "map out" and thematically understand the pre-existing research on a particular topic including assessing any gaps that could be addressed by future research.

Mapping reviews are not to be confused with scoping reviews, and differ as the outcome of a mapping review can be to produce primary research or more reviews. Mapping reviews are also known as systematic maps.

Characteristics

• Although mapping reviews are sometimes called scoping reviews, the key difference is that mapping reviews focus on a question (question based), rather than a topic (topic based) like the like the scoping review.
• Mapping review searches are often quick and are intended to provide a broad overview.
• Mapping reviews can take different approaches in what types of literature is focused on in the search.

When to Use It: Booth (2016) states that "a mapping review is best used where a clear target for a more focused evidence product has not yet been identified" (p.14). Mapping reviews are especially useful topics where there is a lot of preexisting literature, for investigating if there are gaps in the literature, and are useful to conduct before larger knowledge syntheses such as a systematic review.

The following stages of conducting a review of complex interventions are derived from Petticrew & Roberts (2006), Peterson et al. (2008), and Booth et al. (2016).

Timeframe: 12+ months, (same amount of time as a systematic review or longer)

*Varies beyond the type of review. Depends on many factors such as but not limited to: resources available, the quantity and quality of the literature, and the expertise or experience of reviewers" (Grant & Booth, 2009).

Question: Questions are of a wider scope than a systematic review. A priori review protocol is recommended.

Is your review question a complex intervention? Learn more about Reviews of Complex Interventions

Sources and searches: Rapid/as time allows searching aimed to give a broad overview, still aims to be thorough and repeatable. In some cases a mapping review may be limited to a certain type of article--may be limited to just review articles, just peer reviewed journals or just grey literature/research in progress. Must include a PRISMA flow diagram.

Selection: Based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. May require more time spent screening articles due to the larger volume of studies from covering a wider scope. Also necessary to group studies for the mapping of included studies.

Appraisal: None, only if appropriate, includes a quality assessment of study bias/validity.

Synthesis: (Graphical or Tabular, less narrative) Visual synthesis and classification of the available studies. A high level map visualizing the status of the field related to the research question.

The following resource provides further support on conducting a mapping study.

Methods & Guidance

• Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). (2013). Guidance on Systematic Maps.

• Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation Bangor University, UK. (2013). Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in Environmental Management.

• Cooper I. D. (2016). What is a "mapping study?". Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 104(1), 76–78. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.013
• Environmental Evidence Journal. (2014). Systematic Maps. 
• Miake-Lye, I. M., Hempel, S., Shanman, R., & Shekelle, P. G. (2016). What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Systematic reviews, 5, 28. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x

• Apaydin, E. A., Maher, A. R., Raaen, L., Motala, A., Baxi, S., Shanman, R. M., & Hempel, S. (2018). The use of technology in the clinical care of depression: an evidence map. The Journal of clinical psychiatry, 79(5), 18r12118. doi: 10.4088/JCP.18r12118
• Lorenc, T., Khouja, C., Raine, G., Shemilt, I., Sutcliffe, K., D'Souza, P., Burchett, H., Hinds, K., Macdowall, W., Melton, H., Richardson, M., South, E., Stansfield, C., Thomas, S., Kwan, I., Wright, K., Sowden, A., & Thomas. J (2020) COVID-19: living map of the evidence. EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London.
• Solloway, M. R., Taylor, S. L., Shekelle, P. G., Miake-Lye, I. M., Beroes, J. M., Shanman, R. M., & Hempel, S. (2016). An evidence map of the effect of Tai Chi on health outcomes. Systematic reviews, 5(1), 126. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0300-y
• Tybor, D. J., Beauchesne, A. R., Niu, R., Shams-White, M. M., & Chung, M. (2018). An evidence map of research linking dietary sugars to potentially related health outcomes. Current developments in nutrition, 2(11), nzy059. doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzy059

This is an example of a mapping review of complex interventions:

• Lorenc, T., Clayton, S., Neary, D., Whitehead, M., Petticrew, M., Thomson, H., Cummins, S., Sowden, A., & Renton, A. (2012). Crime, fear of crime, environment, and mental health and wellbeing: mapping review of theories and causal pathways. Health & place, 18(4), 757–765. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.04.001

• Booth, A. (2016). EVIDENT guidance for reviewing the evidence: a compendium of methodological literature and websites. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1562.9842
• Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to systematic reviews (2nd ed.). Sage.
• Cooper I. D. (2016). What is a "mapping study?". Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 104(1), 76–78. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.013
• Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information and libraries journal, 26(2), 91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
• Miake-Lye, I. M., Hempel, S., Shanman, R., & Shekelle, P. G. (2016). What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Systematic reviews, 5, 28. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x
• Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., & Mattsson, M. (2008). Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE).
• Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Blackwell Publishing. doi: 10.1002/9780470754887