Abstract：
This scoping review aims to identify and systematically review published mapping reviews to assess their commonality and heterogeneity and determine whether additional efforts should be made to standardise methodology and reporting. The following databases were searched; Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Campbell collaboration database, Social Science Abstracts, Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Following a pilot-test on a random sample of 20 citations included within title and abstracts, two team members independently completed all screening. Ten articles were piloted at full-text screening, and then each citation was reviewed independently by two team members. Discrepancies at both stages were resolved through discussion. Following a pilot-test on a random sample of five relevant full-text articles, one team member abstracted all the relevant data. Uncertainties in the data abstraction were resolved by another team member. A total of 335 articles were eligible for this scoping review and subsequently included. There was an increasing growth in the number of published mapping reviews over the years from 5 in 2010 to 73 in 2021. Moreover, there was a significant variability in reporting the included mapping reviews including their research question, priori protocol, methodology, data synthesis and reporting. This work has further highlighted the gaps in evidence synthesis methodologies. Further guidance developed by evidence synthesis organisations, such as JBI and Campbell, has the potential to clarify challenges experienced by researchers, given the magnitude of mapping reviews published every year.
摘要：
本范围审查旨在确定和系统地审查已发布的制图审查，以评估其共性和异质性，并确定是否应做出更多努力来标准化方法和报告。搜索了以下数据库；OvidMEDLINE，Embase,CINAHL,PsycINFO,坎贝尔协作数据库,社会科学文摘,图书馆与信息科学文摘(LISA)。在对标题和摘要中包含的20篇引文的随机样本进行试点测试之后，两名团队成员独立完成所有筛查.在全文筛选时试行了十篇文章,然后由两名团队成员独立审查每个引文。通过讨论解决了这两个阶段的差异。在对五个相关全文文章的随机样本进行试点测试之后，一名团队成员提取了所有相关数据。数据抽象中的不确定性由另一个团队成员解决。共有335篇文章符合此范围审查的条件，随后被纳入。多年来，已发布的制图评论数量从2010年的5个增加到2021年的73个。此外，在报告所包括的制图审查，包括他们的研究问题方面存在显著的差异，先验协议，方法论，数据综合和报告。这项工作进一步突出了证据综合方法方面的差距。证据综合组织制定的进一步指导，比如JBI和坎贝尔,有可能澄清研究人员经历的挑战，考虑到每年发布的测绘评论的规模。
