This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
Accepted: February 15, 2023
Received: January 27, 2023
Publication stageIn Press Journal Pre-Proof
© 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
ScienceDirectAccess this article on ScienceDirect
- Differentiating between mapping reviews and evidence gap mapsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
- PreviewThank you for the opportunity to reply back to the letter entitled “Mapping review could be seen as a subtype of scoping review and differentiating between the action of mapping evidence and presentation of evidence as maps may be helpful.” While we agree that there are many similarities between scoping reviews and mapping reviews, we disagree that mapping reviews are a subtype of scoping reviews. The main difference lies in the actual research question they address. Scoping reviews tend to answer questions about “what the evidence states” as opposed to “where the evidence is.”  In general, scoping reviews include extensive data extraction using either an inductive or deductive approach .