# data[].attributes.body
NHS Knowledge and Library Hub - Knowledge and Library Services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The NHS Knowledge and Library Hub connects health cares staff and learners to high quality, NHS-funded, knowledge and evidence resources in one place, using a single search.

The 'Hub'

includes all journal articles, e-books, guidelines and evidence summary tools provided nationally and by your local NHS library team

provides seamless access to full text, as an immediate download or on request from an NHS library

avoids the less-reliable sources you might find in a general web search.

Easier access to e-journals

For seamless links, where you want them, install LibKey Nomad on your PC or laptop. Choose your library (or type NHS England) and find your links in PubMed, Google Scholar and many other sites. Or use BrowZine to browse and read the journals you have access to.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The NHS Knowledge and Library Hub connects health cares staff and learners to high quality, NHS-funded, knowledge and evidence resources in one place, using a single search.

# data[].attributes.headline
Template for literature searching -MTW Library

# data[].attributes.subject
Template for literature searching -MTW Library

# data[].attributes.headline
PICO Worksheet and Search Strategy- MUSC Library

# data[].attributes.subject
PICO Worksheet and Search Strategy- MUSC Library

# data[].attributes.body
Grey literature: index and alternative sources and resources – Knowledge & Library Services (koha-ptfs.co.uk)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Grey literature stands for manifold document types produced on all levels of government, academics, business and industry in print and electronic formats that are protected by intellectual property rights, of sufficient quality to be collected and preserved by libraries and institutional repositories, but not controlled by commercial publishers; i.e. where publishing is not the primary activity of the producing body."

The Twelfth International Conference on Grey Literature: Prague 2010

This list has been compiled to help librarians and researchers, particularly in Public Health, to find resources that fall into this category and flag up alternative sources for queries not easily resolved by the clinical/medical database model.

To navigate this page, click on the subject heading boxes to view the content within. Text that is underlined and blue is a hyperlink to a website or resource.

Bielefeld Academy Search Engine

Bielefeld University Library tool.100 million documents - open access repository.

Copyright Library. Main catalogue for millions of records for books, journals, newspapers, printed maps, scores, electronic resources, sound archive items etc. in the Library's collections.

CADTH is an independent, not-for-profit organization responsible for providing health care decision-makers with objective evidence to help make informed decisions about the optimal use of health technologies, including:

diagnostic tests

medical, dental, and surgical devices and procedures.

In addition to evidence, they also provide advice, recommendations, and tools.

Independent views on health and social care.Reports, blogs and moreKing's Fund Library database: http://kingsfund.koha-ptfs.eu/

Mednar is a free, medically-focused deep web search engine that uses Explorit Everywhere, an advanced search technology by As Deep Web Technologies. an alternative to Google , Mednar accelerates your research with a search of authoritative public and deep web resources, returning the most relevant results to one easily navigable page

The National Academies Press has more than 10,000 books downloadable for free (registration required), produced by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Theses and Dissertations

4,558,431 electronic theses and dissertations contained in the NDLTD archive.

The Nuffield Trust is an independent health charity. Their aim is to improve the quality of health care in the UK by providing evidence-based research and policy analysis, and informing/generating debate.

OAIster
OAIster is a union catalogue of millions of records that represent open access resources, built through harvesting from collections worldwide. Includes more than 50 million records that represent digital resources from more than 2,000 contributors.

OECD iLibrary is the online library of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) featuring its books, papers and statistics and is the knowledge base of OECD's analysis and data.

OpenGrey covers Science, Technology, Biomedical Science, Economics, Social Science and Humanities in Europe.Includes:Open access to 700.000 bibliographical references, with the facility to export records and locate the documents.Technical or research reports, doctoral dissertations, some conference papers, some official publications, and other types of grey literature.The site includes preprints from the GL conferences (GreyNet International) in full text.

Public Library of Science (PLOS)

A non-profit Open Access publisher, innovator and advocacy organization with a mission to accelerate progress in science and medicine by leading a transformation in research communication.

RAND produce reports on a range of public health topics, freely available as eBooks. You can search over 20,000 RAND publications dating back to 1946, and filter by theme.

Trip is a clinical search engine, but as well as research evidence, it also provides a gateway to other content types, including images, videos, patient information leaflets, educational courses and news.The Pro version is now funded for NHS and Public Health staff. For Local Authority PH teams please activate IP address linkage by emailing

Public Health England

Health and wellbeing resources / Health protection A to Z / PHE data and analysis tools / Population screening programmes

Public Health Observatories

The Network of Public Health Observatories is now part of Public Health England.

Public Health Observatories (PHOs) produced information, data and intelligence on people's health and health care for practitioners, commissioners, policymakers and the wider community. Their expertise lay in turning information and data into meaningful health intelligence.

Health statistics

This includes both empirical data and estimates related to health, such as mortality, morbidity, risk factors, health service coverage, and health systems.

25 Ministerial Departments

Departments, agencies and public bodies

Official archive and publisher for the UK government and guardians of over 1,000 years of iconic national documents. This is a non-ministerial government department which is a cultural, academic and heritage institution with expert advisers in information and records management.

Top Tip
Here are some examples of commands you can use to focus searches:

site: Focuses your search to within a particular website, e.g. site:gov.uk for government websites or site:ac.uk for UK academic websites. You can also use -site: to exclude individual sites.

filetype: Retrieves results that match the filetype you have specified, e.g. filetype:pdf or filetype:ppt.

Although more 'shopping' than research, Bing is developing and is reputedly better than Google for Maps* (ordnance survey section); corporate sites, for social science, sexual health, anthropology, psychology searches, and for going deeper into a site. Advanced search is the best option.*For detailed directions try Open Street Map

Recommended for its clustering of results and also the visualisations of terms and concepts via the circles and "foam tree". The Web Search uses eTools.ch for the general searches and there is also a PubMed option. (Possibly a subscription service for the most benefit, though there is some open-source access). Whilst no longer freely available, you can sign up for a free trial.

Information on Health, Law, Crime, Economy, Europe, Immigration and Education.

Information for external enquirers who want to use content in the BBC archives for research, educational or other commercial or non-commercial purposes.

Internet Archive is a non-profit library of millions of free books, movies, software, music, websites, and more (US)

The best way to search Twitter - use the Advanced Search or click "More Options" on the results page. There is a detailed description of the commands and how they can be used

Reverse image search. Allows you to search the web, using an image - find matches of that image elsewhere online and traces copyright owner. Also includes MulticolorEngine to extract colour palettes from an image or a set of images.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Grey literature: index and alternative sources and resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Grey literature stands for manifold document types produced on all levels of government, academics, business and industry in print and electronic formats that are protected by intellectual property rights, of sufficient quality to be collected and preserved by libraries and institutional repositories, but not controlled by commercial publishers; i.e.

# data[].attributes.body
EPPI-Centre Home (ioe.ac.uk)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Homepage of the EPPI-Centre website. The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) is part of the Social Science Research Unit at the UCL Institute of Education.

# data[].attributes.body
Be Part of Research (nihr.ac.uk)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After being asked to take part in the NIHR-supported HEAL-COVID trial, Mercy Njoku believes the regular support she received from the research team has been crucial during her recovery from long COVID.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Be Part of Research is a website run by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) and is designed to help people find and volunteer for research studies taking place across the UK.

# data[].attributes.body
EudraCT Public website - Home page (europa.eu)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sponsors of clinical trials on COVID-19 are requested to include the term "COVID-19" in the title of their trial (section A.3 of the CTA). Sponsors are also reminded of the importance of timely reporting of SAEs (Serious Adverse Events) and of SUSARs (Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reactions) to the competent authorities, in order to protect the safety of the participants. In addition, we encourage sponsors of COVID-19 trials to post the relevant results as soon as it is feasible, also before the deadline.

26-09-2022

Kindly note that the EMA Service Desk has changed to ServiceNow and can be accessed via https://support.ema.europa.eu/esc. If you cannot access through this portal, please report your issue or ask your question through using the email address EudraCT_notification@ema.europa.eu. We thank you very much for your collaboration.

31-08-2022

Due to essential maintenance of SPOR, the EudraCT website may experience momentary service losses on 3 and 4 September 2022. We apologise for this inconvenience and we thank you very much for your patience.

29-07-2022

A considerable amount of clinical trials are currently marked as "ongoing" in the EudraCT database. In view of the upcoming transition of trials to CTIS, sponsors are encouraged to verify whether the correct status of their trials is reported on EU CTR. An end of trial form needs to be submitted to National Competent Authorities for the trials that should be marked as "completed" or "prematurely ended". In addition, sponsors are requested to post results of these trials as per European Commission guideline 2012/C 302/03: to know how to post results visit Tutorials on posting results. For questions, refer to Contact us.

30-06-2022

Following the issuing of the Joint Letter by the European Commission, EMA and HMA, National Competent Authorities and European Medicines Agency have sent reminders to sponsors who were not compliant with the European Commission guideline on results posting. Thanks to these reminders, the percentage of posted results substantially increased. However, for some trials the reminders were not successful: detailed lists of these trials can be found here.

03-03-2022

Following the European Commission's Guidance on results postings, the European Medicines Agency and National Competent Authorities sent rounds of notifications in order to remind sponsors of their responsibilities as regards posting clinical trial results in EudraCT. In an attempt to reach sponsors who have not uploaded results yet, round of reminders are now being sent to email addresses stored not only in EudraCT, but also in other databases, such as the EMA Eudra Common Directory (results user roles list), EudraVigilance, SPOR and Art. 57 database.

The EMA recommends all sponsors to verify if their trials comply with the Guidance on results postings through looking for their sponsor name in EU CTR. To learn how to post results visit Tutorials on posting results.

Previous news can be found here
For the UK, as of 1.1.2021, EU Law applies only to the territory of Northern Ireland (NI) to the extent foreseen in the Protocol on Ireland/NI.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EudraCT (European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database) is the European database for all interventional clinical trials on medicinal products authorized in the European Union (EEA) and outside the EU/EEA if they are part of a Paediatric Investigation Plan (PIP) from 1 May 2…

# data[].attributes.body
ISRCTN Registry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ISRCTN accepts all studies involving human subjects or populations with outcome measures assessing effects on human health and well-being, including studies in healthcare, social care, education, workplace safety and economic development. The registry welcomes submissions in English from any location. Studies should ideally be registered prospectively (before recruitment starts).

# data[].attributes.body
ClinicalTrials.gov ‐ API Home

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The ClinicalTrials.gov application programming interface (API) provides a toolbox for programmers and other technical users to use to access all posted information on ClinicalTrials.gov study records data. The API is designed for encoding simple and complex search expressions and parameters in URLs. Clicking on query URLs retrieves study records from ClinicalTrials.gov. Use of ClinicalTrials.gov data is subject to these Terms and Conditions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ClinicalTrials.gov application programming interface (API) provides a toolbox for programmers and other technical users to use to access all posted information on ClinicalTrials.gov study records data. The API is designed for encoding simple and complex search expressions and parameters in URLs. Clicking on query URLs retrieves study records from ClinicalTrials.gov.

# data[].attributes.body
i L·OVE evidence (iloveevidence.com)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Do you need systematic reviews to make health decisions?
L·OVE Platform
Browse our L·OVE platform, where all the health systematic reviews are organized by L·OVEs (i.e. a topic, a condition or a problem) using the PICO format (Population, Intervention, Comparisons, and Outcomes). Save questions, get notified for every time there's new evidence, and more.

Are you working on evidence synthesis or guidelines?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do you need systematic reviews to make health decisions? L·OVE Platform Browse our L·OVE platform, where all the health systematic reviews are organized by L·OVEs (i.e. a topic, a condition or a problem) using the PICO format (Population, Intervention, Comparisons, and Outcomes). Save questions, get notified for every time there's new evidence, and more.

# data[].attributes.body
Grey Literature - Searching for Systematic Reviews - LibGuides at King’s College London (kcl.ac.uk)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
King’s College London Libraries & Collections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LibGuides: Searching for Systematic Reviews: Grey Literature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This guide brings together information and guidance on effective searching for journal articles and grey literature for those undertaking a systematic review.

# data[].attributes.body
ISSG Search Filters Resource (google.com)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This resource is pro duced by members of th e InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group (ISSG). ISSG is the group of information professionals supporting research groups within England and Scotland providing technology assessments to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and other associated Information Specialists.

The Search Filters Resource also provides information and guidance on how to critically appraise search filters, study design filters in progress and information on the development and use of search filters. Inclusion of a search filter is not an endorsement of its validity or a recommendation.

Editorial team: Julie Glanville (Glanville.info), Carol Lefebvre (Lefebvre Associates Ltd), Paul Manson (Aberdeen University), Sophie Robinson (Exeter University), Igor Brbre (Healthcare Improvement Scotland) , and Lois Woods (SHTAC).

The current editorial team would like to acknowledge the contributions of :

Naomi Shaw (Exeter University) who was a member of the editorial team from Dec 2020 to February 2023.

Kath Wright (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) who was lead editor of this Resource for many years and left the project in Dec 2020.

Monthly update searches are undertaken to identify search filters for the Resource.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group Search Filter Resource is a collaborative venture to identify, assess and test search filters designed to retrieve research by study design or focus. The Search Filters Resource aims to provide easy access to published and unpublished search filters.

# data[].attributes.body
Home (google.com)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Welcome to Summarized Research in Information Retrieval for HTA ( SuRe Info ) , a web resource that provides research-based information relating to the information retrieval aspects of producing systematic reviews and health technology assessments. SuRe Info seeks to help information specialists stay up-to-date in the latest developments by providing easy access to current methods papers, and support more research-based information retrieval practice.

The website has two sections, listed below:

1. Information on general search methods common across all health technologies;

2. Methods to use when searching for specific aspects of health technologies (mainly based on the structure of the developed by )

Click on a heading name to reach the chapter summarizing the current research findings within that category. The references listed at the end of each chapter are linked, in many cases, to structured appraisals of the references, written by members of the Sure Info team .

SuRe Info methods and processes are described in the Authors' Manual .

This resource is for personal, professional and non-commercial use only. Reproduction or republishing the content is not allowed. When using the HTA Core Model® we have followed the HTA Core Model Terms of Use . Views expressed in the publication appraisals are those of the SuRe Info reviewers' and do not reflect the opinions of their respective organizations. R Info Bibliography

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) and the Health Technology Assessment international Interest Group in Information Retrieval (HTAi IRG) for support in developing and maintaining SuRe Info. We thank the HTAi for funding provided over the years towards the costs of keeping the website up to date.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to Summarized Research in Information Retrieval for HTA ( SuRe Info ) , a web resource that provides research-based information relating to the information retrieval aspects of producing systematic reviews and health technology assessments. SuRe Info seeks to help information specialists stay up-to-date in the latest developments by providing easy access to current methods papers, and support more research-based information retrieval practice.

# data[].attributes.body
LSSR (google.com)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Library of Search Strategy Resources (LSSR)

# data[].attributes.body
Carrie Price - YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
library librarian "information literacy" research "citation management" "systematic reviews" "literature searching" methodology "scoping reviews" pubmed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn how to simplify workflows and expand your knowledge in evidence synthesis. On this channel, you'll find tutorials about methodology, literature searching, citation management, consumer health, and more. I have been a medical librarian for over 10 years, working with teams on evidence synthesis projects like systematic and scoping reviews.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Searching clinical trials registers_ guide for systematic reviewers _ Enhanced Reader

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Defining the process of literature searching in systematic reviews

# data[].attributes.body
9. Extracting Data - Systematic Reviews - LibGuides at University of California Merced (ucmerced.edu)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LibGuides: Systematic Reviews: 9. Extracting Data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about conducting systematic reviews

# data[].attributes.body
7. Managing & Documenting Results - Systematic Reviews - LibGuides at University of California Merced (ucmerced.edu)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to Main Content

It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

Documenting Your Search Process & Results

Systematic Review guidelines require you to extensively document your search results, the number of studies that you include/ exclude and why, and the number of studies used in your review.

Citation management tools are highly recommended to facilitate this process.

Documentation Requirements

Throughout the search, screening and selection process, you will track:

Each database and platform (PsycINFO; PubMed; LILACS, etc) searched

Date each search was conducted

Subject headings and keywords used (including whether terms were exploded, truncated, etc)

Search history, including combination of terms

Number of results retrieved for each search and combination within each database

Total number of records

Duplicates identified

Numbers pre-screening and post-screening

All searches conducted via hand-searching must identify the source (journal, conference proceedings, etc,) plus the years searched.

From UC Davis Systematic Reviews guide.

Documenting Citation Thinning & Deduplication

EndNote - Systematic Review Eliminating Citations (14:10)

This video demonstrates using a Word document alongside EndNote to demonstrate the procedures for organizing results into groups, documenting searches/ number of results, and the process for thinning and deduplicating your results.

This process can be replicated using a spreadsheet and your preferred citation management tool.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LibGuides: Systematic Reviews: 7. Managing & Documenting Results

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to Main Content It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

# data[].attributes.body
PRISMA (prisma-statement.org)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
News Feed

PRISMA Website re-design

The PRISMA website underwent a much-needed update in October 2015 to update the content of the website. We have updated the look of the site and added the PRISMA extensions, translations, and information about review protocols.

PRISMA Extensions!

Several PRISMA extensions have been published in 2015 so far.

These are in addition to the PRISMA Abstract and Equity extensions, all found on the PRISMA website, here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PRISMA Website re-design The PRISMA website underwent a much-needed update in October 2015 to update the content of the website. We have updated the look of the site and added the PRISMA extensions, translations, and information about review protocols. PRISMA Extensions! Several PRISMA extensions have been published in 2015 so far.

# data[].attributes.body
PRISMA 2020 - Creating a PRISMA flow diagram - LibGuides at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (unc.edu)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The aim of the PRISMA Statement is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have focused on randomized trials, but PRISMA can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions. PRISMA may also be useful for critical appraisal of published systematic reviews, although it is not a quality assessment instrument to gauge the quality of a systematic review. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram."

"The PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration document explains and illustrates the principles underlying the PRISMA Statement. It is strongly recommended that it be used in conjunction with the PRISMA Statement.

PRISMA is part of a broader effort, to improve the reporting of different types of health research, and in turn to improve the quality of research used in decision-making in healthcare."
From prisma-statement.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LibGuides: Creating a PRISMA flow diagram: PRISMA 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LibGuides: Creating a PRISMA flow diagram: PRISMA 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews_ reporting guideline _ Enhanced Reader

# data[].attributes.body
Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different— the “Big Picture” review family | Systematic Reviews | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Evidence synthesis(defined broadly as the rigorous collation, evaluation and analysis of literature, studies, and reports) is increasingly viewed as critical to inform decision making in policy and practice. Over the past three decades, as various methods of evidence synthesis have emerged and evolved, the systems and labels used to categorize different review types have proliferated. A recent catalog of evidence synthesis approaches and terms identified 48 distinct review types [ 1]. Moher et al. (2015) [ 2], describes them as a "family" of evidence synthesis products that have arisen in response to policymakers and other stakeholders needs for diverse forms of information. This growth reflects the increased value placed on evidence synthesis to inform decision making, and we now see evidence synthesis used to address a broader range of research questions beyond effectiveness, along with tailored approaches (in terms of methods and products) to evidence synthesis as appropriate for different research needs, purposes, situations, and audiences [ 3].

Examples of approaches that are increasingly seen in the published literature are scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs). Scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and EGMs are relatively new approaches that rarely appeared before 2009 [ 4, 5]. Scoping reviews, evidence maps, and evidence and gap maps have been grouped together as "Big Picture" approaches due to their shared purpose and approaches. These Big Picture reviews can be contrasted with systematic reviews (addressing interventions, diagnostic test accuracy, prognosis, etc.) as they have a broader scope as compared to the (normally) narrower scope of classic systematic reviews. There have been consistent yearly increases in the publication of scoping, mapping, and evidence and gap maps [ 6]. Despite this, there remains confusion as to their application, meaning, and whether differences exist between them. This commentary aims to clarify these approaches, identify any differences between them, and provide recommendations for reviewers.

Terminology matters

This growing and evolving family of evidence synthesis types presents some challenges [ 7].

Firstly, there is the challenge of choosing the correct approach, particularly when terms are used inconsistently in the literature. The selection of an appropriate review approach will ensure the correct methods are employed using the appropriate standards for both its conduct and reporting. Indexing and wider dissemination can be challenging for researchers when there is ambiguity in terms [ 8, 9].

Scoping reviews and mapping reviews-how are they used in the literature

Scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and evidence maps are terms that are not used consistently in the literature, with different terms used to describe similar approaches and review objectives. The same term is also used to describe different approaches and review objectives. Within the published literature, the terms scoping reviews and mapping reviews appear to be used in three different ways. Firstly, the terms "mapping" and "scoping" reviews are used interchangeably, referring to the same type of review methodology [ 5, 6, 10]. This approach is also one that is used in the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [ 11], providing guidance to inform reporting standards [ 12]. This may therefore have been influential in increasing the use of the term scoping review over the use of the term mapping review. Examination of published reviews does not reveal differences in method between these approaches (Campbell et al., 2022 publication in press).

Secondly, we see the terms used as complementary to the other. Some definitions tend to use the terms in a way which suggest that mapping is a specific approach to scoping-or vice versa. For example, "scoping reviews can usefully map the evidence in a number of ways" [ 13] and "scoping reviews are a way of mapping the key concepts" [ 14]. Lukersmith et al. (2016) [ 15] and Fernadez-Sotos et al. (2019) [ 16] suggest that the term map is a descriptive term used to describe one of the purposes of the scoping review. A mapping review may also scope the literature. It has also been suggested that when the term mapping is included in the description of the method that the review will incorporate a geographical mapping exercise or charting of the data in a tabular or any other visual format that can plot or portray the data.

Finally, we see scoping and mapping used to describe different types of evidence synthesis, and a distinction is made between mapping and scoping reviews [ 1, 17]. These authors suggest that scoping reviews are "preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature which aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research)". It also is a term that has emerged within the systematic review field to describe the preliminary work undertaken with information specialists in planning the review, by getting a sense of the size of the literature, to identify key terms and theories and potentially clinical experts [ 18]. Within these definitions, mapping reviews are distinguished from a scoping review because the subsequent outcome may involve either further review work or primary research and this outcome is not known beforehand. For the purpose of this paper, we will refer to these as a scoping exercise instead of a formal scoping review methodology. Scoping exercises within this definition would not usually be regarded as a final output in their own right, primarily because of limitations in their rigor mean that they hold the potential for bias.

Gough et al. (2012) [ 19] suggest that the term scoping review often describes a more rapid, and so usually non-systematic, approach to describing the nature of the literature on a topic area, sometimes as part of planning for a systematic review compared with a standard systematic review. It is also important to note that there are published rapid scoping reviews where streamlined methods are used, but transparency and rigor are maintained to produce quicker results for decision-making purposes. Examples of these types of rapid scoping reviews include rapid responses to policy questions during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 20, 21].

An alternative view of the difference comes from Bragge et al. (2011) [ 22] who suggests that a scoping review is distinguished from mapping by the inclusion of research results in the description of relevant evidence, whereas maps simply describe what is there without collating and summarizing the results of the studies.

So, even where the types of products are seen as different, there is not a consistent approach in this difference. Nevertheless, understanding why they are considered different is important in considering what is lost, in terms of an apt descriptor, if the terms are amalgamated and used interchangeably.

Historical origins

One reason that the terms scoping and mapping have emerged to describe two similar methodological approaches addressing broad types of research questions lies in the academic traditions from which they derive and the epistemological foundations upon which these are built. Scoping reviews and scoping review methodological guidance [ 12] tends to cite the framework defined by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) [ 23] and later enhancements by Levac et al. (2010) [ 24]. These approaches have their roots in sociological sciences. In contrast, the term evidence mapping was first used by Katz et al. (2003) [ 25] and has roots in the natural sciences. This was the term adopted by the EPPI Center in an early publication of a mapping review and is the term used by the Center for Environmental Evidence for the environmental sciences. The approach to evidence mapping accompanied by a visual evidence and gap map has been developed by several agencies (see Saran and White, 2018) [ 26], most notably by the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) [ 27] in the field of international development and subsequently adopted and adapted to a wider a range of sectors through the Campbell Collaboration. These include, for example, transport [ 28], youth violence, disability (Saran et al. [ 29]), employment (Campbell et al. [ 30]), and health and elder abuse [ 31] (Table 1).

Suggested approaches for distinguishing between mapping reviews and mapping reviews with EGMs and scoping reviews

The emergence of two terms (scoping and mapping) to describe approaches that have much in common in terms of their objectives and methods suggests that the terms used will be shaped more by the academic background of the researcher than by inherent differences in the approaches.

Currently, as we have shown, there are many instances where "mapping and scoping" are used interchangeably. We argue, in this paper, that while there is considerable overlap between these approaches, there is value in creating a distinction between scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and evidence gap maps. They also could be considered complementary, and a review may have elements of both "mapping" and "scoping." Each approach, within this family of "broad approach and exploratory reviews" however has a shared objective which is to overview a wider research/topic area, rather than to address a tightly focused question. The methods thereafter diverge in part to address the nature of the research question, the research objectives, the topic area, the depth required for the data extraction, and the expertise of the review team.

We propose that a useful distinction is to see mapping, scoping, and EGMs sitting within the same family of types addressing broad questions but sitting on a spectrum in some of their underpinning epistemologies, concepts, and hence objectives (Fig. 1).

This is illustrated in the figure below:

The Big Picture review family (commonalities and differences in approaches)

Scoping review

These review types have been variously defined and described in the literature as described above. To address the confusion in this field, a recent formal definition of scoping reviews has been proposed, describing scoping reviews as follows:

It is a type of evidence synthesis that aims to systematically identify and map the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, field, concept, or issue, often irrespective of source (i.e., primary research, reviews, non-empirical evidence) within or across particular contexts. Scoping reviews can clarify key concepts/definitions in the literature and identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept, including those related to methodological research [ 32].

They can be more exploratory than mapping reviews and EGMs, not requiring an a priori set of codes in order to describe data and may draw upon a range of sources of information (i.e., primary research, reviews, non-empirical evidence) within or across particular contexts.The approach can be more iterative, inductive, or deductive [ 32]. The nature of the "cataloging" and coding may be in response to what is found within the literature or using pre-defined categorization codes. Scoping reviews can also be used to identify concepts and clarify terms in the literature. In contrast to a mapping review where the process of coding is predefined. Within a scoping review, the data extracted may be textual and descriptive, allowing for example an analysis of concepts and categories using simple content analysis. It may include both predefined coding and also exploration of themes (for example, Kelly-Blake et al. 2018 [ 33]). In contrast, along a continuum, mapping reviews will address broader questions, use predefined coding, and adopt less in-depth data extraction.

Table 1 Summary of the different roots and institutions that use mapping and scoping reviews

Mapping review

Mapping reviews are also a transparent, rigorous, and systematic approach to identifying, describing, and cataloging evidence and evidence gaps in a broader topic area. They are to collate, describe, and catalog the available evidence relating to the question of interest [ 18]. They aim to answer the question "what do we know about a topic," or "what and where research exists on a particular area." A mapping review typically extracts only descriptive information about the studies and applies predefined codes (high level data). In this sense, they may be informed by an "aggregative" logic. A mapping review may or may not be accompanied by an EGM but provides visual summaries in the form of tables and graphs within the text [ 36]. These types of reviews may well have broader focus than a scoping review, with more limited data extracted from the included papers.

Evidence and gap maps

Evidence and gap maps are described as "a systematic presentation of all relevant evidence of a specified kind for a particular sector, sub-sector, or geography". Evidence and gap maps (EGMs) are a systematic evidence synthesis product which displays the available evidence relevant to a specific research question. EGMs consist of primary dimensions or framework (rows and columns) and secondary dimensions or filters, enabling exploration of the map using a particular focus (e.g., looking at particular populations or study designs). It creates a visual, web-based, and interactive output [ 34].

This type of evidence synthesis generally uses a deductive approach with a pre-specified framework to classify the data and identify gaps in the literature. However, if no suitable framework is available, then the research team can develop their own by drawing on the range of resources, such as strategy documents, policy document, and funder reports. This is one of the major differences between mapping with an EGM review and scoping reviews (for the latter, an inductive or deductive approach may be used to identify relevant data elements so the framework for classification of the data and identification of gaps does not need to be pre-specified). Evidence gap maps may accompany a mapping review as a visual representation of the included studies or can stand independently from an accompanying mapping review.

Purpose

All three of these approaches are characterized by seeking to address a broader topic area rather than a specific intervention or exposure. They are an appropriate tool if the research question is one in which multiple dimensions need to be considered, for example, multiple interventions, outcomes, or types of evidence. They do not aim to synthesize data but rather describe, categorize, and catalog findings. They aim to do so by applying defined methods to ensure transparency and rigor in the process of identifying, screening, data extraction, and interpreting findings. By addressing a broad topic area these approaches support the following purposes [ 3]:

Knowledge generation to support broad research questions and objectives such as the following:

What types of evidence are available in a given field?

How are concepts or definitions used within the literature?

How and where research is conducted on a certain topic?

The type of broad research question will inform the choice of approach. Scoping reviews are more likely to address open questions and the concepts may be emergent such "how is a key term used within the literature," in contrast a mapping review may address more closed questions such as "how often the key term is used within the literature and within which population groups." An evidence gap map will similarly address a closed question, for example, "is the term used in the following types of population group: children, adolescents, older people, and people with chronic conditions."

Scoping reviews can provide an approach that allows exploration and clarification of key concepts and definitions within the literature, as well as how research is undertaken. As this approach does not require predefined categories, it allows for more descriptive data extraction. Often the question will be narrower than in a mapping review, allowing a greater depth of exploration of the included studies.

These approaches enable a better understanding is gained of phenomena by seeing it within a wider context. Olson et al. 2021 [ 37] uses the allegory of the blind monks who examine the elephant, where close inspection of one part of the whole means that meaning is lost. A complete picture is needed to really understand what the elephant is. It is clear, when seeking to operationalize what is meant by a "broad" topic area that perspective matters. For a cell biologist, the cell nucleus might be a broad topic, which a single country might be too narrow a perspective for the geographer. Understanding this unique feature of "Big Picture" reviews is perhaps easier when seen in contrast to the approach used in a systematic review examining the effectiveness of a single intervention. A Big Picture review question will look at multiple interventions or exposures and multiple outcomes or effects, seeking not to synthesize but to describe (Table 2).

To provide a foundation for guiding future research priorities and decisions by identifying available evidence and gaps in research

Mapping reviews and EGMs incorporate a framework that is generated during development of the protocol-it is this framework which guides the development of the data extraction tool or coding tool. This framework becomes the "map" against which existing evidence is plotted.

Identifying research gaps is often a stated part of all types of research; indeed, implications for "research and practice" are an expected part of all health and social care-related research. Identifying research gaps is often a primary purpose of scoping, mapping, and mapping reviews with EGMs more than other types of review design. In particular, mapping reviews with or without evidence gap maps address this purpose with a transparency and rigor that is unique.

Evidence and gap maps aim to enable evidence to be located, both by showing what is there but also in demonstrating knowledge gaps. In order to identify knowledge gaps, an EGM begins by developing the framework against which the evidence is plotted. The development of the framework adheres to the following principles. Firstly, it may be constructed using an existing, widely accepted international typology for either interventions, exposures, or outcomes. Secondly, if no suitable framework is available then the research team may draw on a range of resources including consultation with stakeholders and relevant published theories to ensure the comprehensiveness of the framework. Without such a structure, the gaps are not identified in a systematic way, but rather inferred and chosen by the review authors (no doubt well informed) but nevertheless influenced by their own perspectives and bias. This may be particularly apparent where a review is undertaken to pave the way for further primary research by the same team. Review teams could be strongly invested in identifying their own planned research as the "research gap."

Evidence gap maps are a systematic approach to identifying the evidence and in particular-its gaps. No other review methodology has developed a systematic approach to identifying gaps in the evidence with this level of rigor and transparency. A limitation of the approach is that it only charts what is known and does not allow a more exploratory approach that may be employed in a scoping review.

Mapping and mapping reviews with EGMs aim to describe the state of evidence for a question or topic. The review questions may therefore be open framed and broad. However, the question can be close framed and narrow. Key elements of the question can be formulated by a framework such as PO (population, outcome). For an EGM, the objectives are formalized in the framework which defines the scope of the map [ 34].

To inform policy decisions, where an overview of an area may be more helpful than specific questions about specific types of interventions

Mapping (with or without an EGM) and scoping reviews often have pertinence for policy makers as they are able to cover the breadth of science often needed for policy-based questions; however, it needs to be remembered that the mapping approaches do not synthesize the findings and not include quality or risk of bias appraisal. These factors may limit their value to support some types of policy decisions. However, a mapping review with an accompanying EGM can take users to the research papers and facilitate the ready location of relevant evidence. An EGM can take users to the research papers and facilitate the ready location of relevant evidence. One example has been the use of a country evaluation map used by the Office of the Prime Minister of Uganda to identify studies to inform policy work [ 38]. Similarly, scoping reviews can inform policy and further research through identifying the available literature pertaining to a particular topic, along with clarifying key concepts and definitions.

As a stepping stone to building the evidence architecture

Evidence mapping and EGMs may be used as a first step towards the generation of evidence-based decision-making products, such as guidance, checklists, and online decision-making tools [ 39]. Maps will identify the (i) existing reviews which are suitable to use a basis for guidance, etc., (ii) where there are clusters of primary studies but no review so reviews may be commissioned in priority areas to inform guidance, etc., and (iii) important policy areas in which evidence is missing. To serve this purpose, the map should be regularly updated (maintained).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different- the "Big Picture" review family - Systematic Reviews

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and evidence and gap maps are evidence synthesis methodologies that address broad research questions, aiming to describe a bigger picture rather than address a specific question about intervention effectiveness. They are being increasingly used to support a range of purposes including guiding research priorities and decision making.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meeting the review family_exploring review types and retrieval requirements

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What kind of systematic review should I conduct

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Decision Tree - What type of review is right

# data[].attributes.body
Interactive Learning | Cochrane Training

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Developed by world-leading experts, this course provides over 15 hours of self-directed learning on conducting a complete systematic review process for both new and experienced review authors. Watch this short video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Developed by world-leading experts, this course provides over 15 hours of self-directed learning on conducting a complete systematic review process for both new and experienced review authors. Watch this short video

# data[].attributes.body
Literature Searching Modules - LKS North

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The following e-learning modules aim to provide librarians with the knowledge, skills and examples to provide an effective literature search service. The modules are based upon the LIHNN Literature Searching MOOC After completing these modules you should be able to:

Identify key concepts from the user to focus the search request

Select appropriate resources and match them to the literature search request

Conduct a literature search using textwords and thesaurus terms

Identify techniques to refine the literature search

Present search results in a bibliography, summary or synthesis format

Evaluate the quality, performance and impact of the literature search

Present your evaluations to different audiences

When you have completed the modules of your choice please fill in the feedback form.
Updated 15 April 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The following e-learning modules aim to provide librarians with the knowledge, skills and examples to provide an effective literature search service.

# data[].attributes.body
Overview - Systematic Reviews - Subject and Research Guides at Macquarie University (mq.edu.au)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Systematic Reviews (SRs) aim to find and evaluate all studies, published and unpublished, relevant to a research question. They use systematic methods to minimise bias and they also use transparent methods that allow for replication and verification.

Key characteristics are:

a clearly stated research question with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies

an explicit, reproducible methodology

a comprehensive search strategy that attempts to identify all studies that would meet the eligibility criteria

an appraisal of the validity of the findings of the included studies, for example through the assessment of risk of bias

a synthesis and interpretation of the findings of the included studies (Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2008, p. 6)

Meta-analysis is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesise and summarise the results.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Subject and Research Guides: Systematic Reviews: Overview

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Systematic Reviews (SRs) aim to find and evaluate all studies, published and unpublished, relevant to a research question. They use systematic methods to minimise bias and they also use transparent methods that allow for replication and verification.

# data[].attributes.body
Resources - Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (mtw.nhs.uk)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Resources - Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AMED: The Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) is a bibliographic database covering a selection of journals in complementary medicine, palliative care, and several professions allied to medicine. (Via OVID) CINHAL: The CINAHL® database is a comprehensive and authoritative source of information for nurses, allied health professionals, and others interested in health care.

# data[].attributes.body
SR-Accelerator

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Systematic Review Accelerator project is based at the Bond University Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare. The aim is to reduce the amount of time it takes to construct a Systematic Review without impacting quality

# data[].attributes.body
The Systematic Review Toolbox (systematicreviewtools.com)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A resource for identifying tools to support systematic reviews

# data[].attributes.body
Better evidence for a better world - The Campbell Collaboration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In order to provide you with the best online experience this website uses cookies.

We use cookies to improve our website. By continuing to use this website, you are giving consent to cookies being used by Google Analytics, and those social media channels you expressly select by clicking on buttons (links). Cookie policy. I accept cookies from this site.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Campbell Collaboration is a social science research network which produces and disseminates evidence about which policies, programmes and practices work, and why. Our mission is to improve people's lives and to achieve positive social change. We do this by providing rigorous and high-quality systematic reviews of evidence that can be used by policymakers, practitioners and service users.

# data[].attributes.body
Systematic reviewing - a resource list | readinglists@leicester (talis.com)

# data[].attributes.body
Home - Searching for Systematic Reviews - LibGuides at King’s College London (kcl.ac.uk)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to Main Content

Use and reuse license for our guides

The material in these guides is licensed under:

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
CC BY-NC-SA

Find out more at the Creative Commons:

Systematic Review Drop-ins via Gather

Attend this drop-in for King's College London staff and students if you would like to discuss your search strategy or database query with a librarian or have any questions about the advanced searching skills required when undertaking a systematic review.

The drop-in will be held on a website called Gather. There is no need to book your place.

Please see the Upcoming KLaSS sign-up workshops schedule to find out more:

KEATS modules

We have created a comprehensive e-learning pathway to support you to develop the advanced searching skills for systematic reviews. To find the course, click the link to KLaSS below and look for Finding Academic Material for Advanced Health Topics. This e-learning module also describes how to book onto our 2 hour webinar LIB261 Search Techniques for Systematic Reviewers.

Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI)

JBI is concerned with improving health outcomes in communities globally by promoting and supporting the use of the best available evidence to inform decisions made at the point of care. They focus on the translation of research evidence into practice, with researchers conducting systematic reviews that reflect a broad, inclusive approach to evidence and accommodate a range of diverse questions and study designs.

The JBI Reviewer's Manual provides guidance to authors for the conduct and preparation of JBI systematic reviews and evidence syntheses. The JBI Reviewer's Manual has separate chapters devoted synthesis of different types of evidence and to address different types of review questions. This includes guidance on different types of systematic reviews, mixed methods, umbrella reviews and scoping reviews.

Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews from JBI Evidence Implementation (Feb 2021):

Peters, Micah D.J.1,2,3; Marnie, Casey1; Tricco, Andrea C.4,5,6; Pollock, Danielle7; Munn, Zachary7; Alexander, Lyndsay8,9; McInerney, Patricia10,11; Godfrey, Christina M.6,12; Khalil, Hanan13,14 Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews, JBI Evidence Implementation: March 2021 - Volume 19 - Issue 1 - p 3-10
doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000277

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LibGuides: Searching for Systematic Reviews: Home

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This guide brings together information and guidance on effective searching for journal articles and grey literature for those undertaking a systematic review.

# data[].attributes.body
Undertaking your Systematic Review - Systematic Reviews - LibGuides at Lancaster University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The search is arguably the most important element of a well-produced systematic review. A good search should be:

Highly Sensitive, it should retrieve the most papers for your question, with the risk of retrieving irrelevant papers. These papers should be removed via screening.

Reproducible, it should be well documented and able to be repeated

Tested, to ensure that key papers have not been overlooked, or key subject terms missed.

Many protocols also recommend that a search is produced in collaboration with an information professional such as a skilled researcher or librarian.

Review the Systematic Literature Searching LibGuide for a more comprehensive guide on this topic, as we will only cover elements related to Systematic Reviews. An excellent paper to review is the PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement from the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, which includes a handy 'best practice' checklist.

The Below example is also a very summarised version of the comprehensive Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy
Important!
At every stage of your search, note down the database and the number of results found. This will make producing a PRISMA flow diagram easier. Export your results as a .RIS file. Also, drop your search strategy into a word document (a simple copy and paste works).

This will help you document your search strategy, and ensure reproducability

The guidance How do I export a large number of results from EBSCO databases to EndNote? may help streamline the exporting of abstracts.
Key elements of a Highly Sensitive Search
In a basic HSSS, you will always see these elements (They can be complex in many cases with proximity searching and boolean, but the search tends to follow this format)

The top search box is the Subject Term. Always search through the subject term/thesaurus and add any relevant subject terms. If you are given the option to 'explode' (include all the subheadings) always consider this. You can choose not to but document your reasons why.

The next two boxes are set to search through the Title and Abstract. Normally this is the default search however if a subject is very new you can search 'all fields' as it might bring in a few additional author keywords. This search is a 'free text' search and features a few elements common to HSSS searches:

Brackets. These ensure that search strings inside the brackets are performed first, almost like a mini search within a search. Use these to ensure your search string does not do anything unexpected.

Plurals. You can add a * to also retrieve plurals and other words 'starting with'. If you are curious that adding a * to your word might retrieve irrelevant papers you can use a crossword solver website such as WordHippo to investigate words 'starting with'.

Proximity/Adjacent Operator. This is a special operator such as N, ADJ or NEAR (Depends on database which you can use to search for search terms within N words of each other. This allows you to search for words in proximity with each other, I.E. Health N3 Literat* will retrieve "health literacy", "literate health worker" and "healthy and literate". See the Systematic Searching LibGuide for further information.

Although useful in Quantitative research topics, Proximity searching can be very useful in Qualitative subjects dealing with conceptual topics that might have the same research subject described in many different ways. You can increase the N or ADJ operator to take into account qualitative topics (feelings and opinions) that may not be in as close proximity to each other. A good starting point is N3 for Quantitative and N5 for Qualitative topics. See LibAnswers
A common question: How many papers should I include in my systematic review?
The answer is, as many as your search retrieves! You should not limit by date or any search terms unless they are specifically mentioned in your protocol.

Systematic reviews with 1000s of papers for screening are not unheard of, and should not be artificially reduced. In many cases, a Faculty Librarian may be able to help advise you on improving your search without reducing the sensitivity of the search.

It is also possible to set up Endnote or use services such as Rayyan to streamline the screening process, in a multi-stage 3 pass method such as title, abstract, and full-text screening which reduces the burden.
Often asked: Am I permitted to use a Date range in a systematic review?
Yes, it can be justified if the paper is on a specific technological development, policy, guideline, or subject. For example, limiting a search on developments in non-theoretical quantum computing may be only suitable from 1990 onwards, yet a search for the concept of loneliness should have no date limit. Any date limits should be mentioned and justified in your protocol/writeup.
Best Practice: Should I use a previously published literature search?
Yes. It can be considered best practice to use a published search strategies, however always consider a previously published search to be a framework to build upon, rather than to be used unmodified. Search strategies are tested and improved over time, and the quality can vary. The ISSG Search Filters Website includes examples of many different search strategies focusing on various study methodologies, and searching for (Your Subject) AND ("search stratg*") in the titles of papers in any database will provide validated search strategies for you to build upon. Systematic Review protocols are also valuable when developing your search, if you found a similar review during your scoping search.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LibGuides: Systematic Reviews: Undertaking your Systematic Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The search is arguably the most important element of a well-produced systematic review. A good search should be: Highly Sensitive, it should retrieve the most papers for your question, with the risk of retrieving irrelevant papers. These papers should be removed via screening.

# data[].attributes.body
Guides and handbooks | Cochrane Training

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We use necessary cookies to make our site work. We’d also like to set optional analytics cookies to help us improve it. We won’t set optional cookies unless you enable them. Using this tool will set a cookie on your device to remember your preferences. You can always change your cookie preferences a…

# data[].attributes.body
Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (york.ac.uk)

# data[].attributes.body
Farhad – Medium

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read writing from Farhad on Medium. A Proper Information Scientist/Professional with a Pinch of Career and Life Lessons. Every day, Farhad and thousands of other voices read, write, and share important stories on Medium.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Literature Search Process_Guidance for NHS Researchers

# data[].attributes.body
JBI ESTI About | JBI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enabling researchers to ensure that they are undertaking the "right" evidence synthesis approach to respond to a clinical or policy question appropriately has strategic implications from a broader evidence-based healthcare perspective. This project proposes the idea of developing a taxonomy of evidence synthesis to provide some much-needed structure to this burgeoning field.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching Them to Fish_synthesis review searching for nurses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Systematic reviews_Structure, form and content

# data[].attributes.body
Literature Searching via the NHS Learning Hub

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Cookies on the Learning Hub

We've put some small files called cookies on your device to make our site work.

We'd also like to use analytics cookies. These send anonymous information about how our site is used to a service called Google Analytics & Hotjar Analytics. We use this information to improve our site.

Let us know if this is OK. We'll use a cookie to save your choice. You can read more about our cookies before you choose.

BETA This is a new platform - your feedback will help us to improve it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to main content We've put some small files called cookies on your device to make our site work. We'd also like to use analytics cookies. These send anonymous information about how our site is used to a service called Google Analytics & Hotjar Analytics. We use this information to improve our site.