Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Medical Research Methodology and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Technical advance

The Global Evidence Mapping Initiative: Scoping research in broad topic areas

Peter Bragge12*, Ornella Clavisi12, Tari Turner3, Emma Tavender12, Alex Collie4 and Russell L Gruen12

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Surgery, Monash University, Level 6, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia

2 National Trauma Research Institute, Level 4, 89 Commercial Road, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia

3 Australasian Cochrane Centre, Monash University, Level 6, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia

4 Institute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research, Level 6, 499 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Medical Research Methodology 2011, 11:92  doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-92

Published: 17 June 2011

Abstract

Background

Evidence mapping describes the quantity, design and characteristics of research in broad topic areas, in contrast to systematic reviews, which usually address narrowly-focused research questions. The breadth of evidence mapping helps to identify evidence gaps, and may guide future research efforts. The Global Evidence Mapping (GEM) Initiative was established in 2007 to create evidence maps providing an overview of existing research in Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Spinal Cord Injury (SCI).

Methods

The GEM evidence mapping method involved three core tasks:

1. Setting the boundaries and context of the map: Definitions for the fields of TBI and SCI were clarified, the prehospital, acute inhospital and rehabilitation phases of care were delineated and relevant stakeholders (patients, carers, clinicians, researchers and policymakers) who could contribute to the mapping were identified. Researchable clinical questions were developed through consultation with key stakeholders and a broad literature search.

2. Searching for and selection of relevant studies: Evidence search and selection involved development of specific search strategies, development of inclusion and exclusion criteria, searching of relevant databases and independent screening and selection by two researchers.

3. Reporting on yield and study characteristics: Data extraction was performed at two levels - 'interventions and study design' and 'detailed study characteristics'. The evidence map and commentary reflected the depth of data extraction.

Results

One hundred and twenty-nine researchable clinical questions in TBI and SCI were identified. These questions were then prioritised into high (n = 60) and low (n = 69) importance by the stakeholders involved in question development. Since 2007, 58 263 abstracts have been screened, 3 731 full text articles have been reviewed and 1 644 relevant neurotrauma publications have been mapped, covering fifty-three high priority questions.

Conclusions

GEM Initiative evidence maps have a broad range of potential end-users including funding agencies, researchers and clinicians. Evidence mapping is at least as resource-intensive as systematic reviewing. The GEM Initiative has made advancements in evidence mapping, most notably in the area of question development and prioritisation. Evidence mapping complements other review methods for describing existing research, informing future research efforts, and addressing evidence gaps.