Insights from search summary tables for evidence and gap maps: a case study on peer support interventions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2025.1831Keywords:
evidence synthesis, evidence and gap maps, information retrieval, search summary tableAbstract
Background: Evidence and Gap Maps (EGMs) are a visual representation of the available evidence relevant to a specific research question or topic area. They are produced using similar methods to systematic reviews, however, there is little guidance on which databases to search and how many. Information Specialists need to make decisions on which resources to search, often for a range of study designs within a broad topic area to ensure comprehensiveness.
Case Presentation: This case study presents two search summary tables (SSTs) from an evidence and gap map on peer support interventions. The first search summary table presents the findings of the search for systematic reviews and the second for randomised controlled trials. Different databases and different searches were undertaken for the two different study types.
Conclusion: The two SSTs indicated that MEDLINE and PsycINFO were key databases required for the identification of both systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials of peer support interventions, with the addition of CINAHL for systematic reviews, and CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials. For both study types, forward citation searching found additional included studies although it was more lucrative for identifying additional randomised controlled trials. Search summary tables are a simple way to share the effectiveness of the search methods chosen for a specific evidence synthesis project. The more SSTs we have, the more data we will have to inform evidence-based decisions on our search methods.
References
Snilstveit B, Vojtkova M, Bhavsar A, Stevenson J, Gaarder M. Evidence & Gap Maps: A tool for promoting evidence informed policy and strategic research agendas. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;79:120-9.
Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal. 2019;36(3):202-22.
Campbell F, Tricco AC, Munn Z, Pollock D, Saran A, Sutton A, et al. Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different- the "Big Picture" review family. Syst Rev. 2023;12(1):45.
Khalil H, Campbell F, Danial K, Pollock D, Munn Z, Welsh V, et al. Advancing the methodology of mapping reviews: A scoping review. Res Synth Methods. 2024;15(3):384-97.
Khalil H, Tricco AC. Differentiating between mapping reviews and scoping reviews in the evidence synthesis ecosystem. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;149:175-82.
White H, Welch V, Pigott T, Marshall Z, Snilstveit B, Mathew C, et al. Campbell Collaboration checklist for evidence and gap maps: reporting standards: Campbell Collaboration; 2018. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/18911803/homepage/author-guidelines.
Pullin AS, Frampton GK, Livoreil B, Petrokofsky G. Guidelines and standards for evidence synthesis in environmental management: Collaboration for Environmental Evidence; 2018. Available from: environmentalevidence.org/informationforauthors.
Haddaway NR, Macura B, Whaley P, Pullin AS. ROSES for systematic map reports 2017. Available from: roses-reporting.com/systematic-map-reports.
Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2021;10(1):39.
Bethel AC, Rogers M, Abbott R. Use of a search summary table to improve systematic review search methods, results, and efficiency. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021;109(1):97-106.
Whear R, Abbott RA, Bethel A, Richards DA, Garside R, Cockcroft E, et al. Impact of COVID-19 and other infectious conditions requiring isolation on the provision of and adaptations to fundamental nursing care in hospital in terms of overall patient experience, care quality, functional ability, and treatment outcomes: systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2022;78(1):78-108.
Levay P, Heath A, Tuvey D. Efficient searching for NICE public health guidelines: Would using fewer sources still find the evidence? Research Synthesis Methods. 2022;13(6):760-89.
Coleman S, Wright JM, Nixon J, Schoonhoven L, Twiddy M, Greenhalgh J. Searching for Programme theories for a realist evaluation: a case study comparing an academic database search and a simple Google search. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):217.
Price A, de Bell S, Shaw N, Bethel A, Anderson R, Coon JT. What is the volume, diversity and nature of recent, robust evidence for the use of peer support in health and social care? An evidence and gap map. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2022;18(3):e1264.
Liang D, Jia R, Zhou X, Lu G, Wu Z, Yu J, et al. The effectiveness of peer support on self-efficacy and self-management in people with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis. Patient Education & Counseling. 2021;104(4):760-9.
White S, Foster R, Marks J, Morshead R, Goldsmith L. The effectiveness of one-to-one peer support in mental health services: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2020;20(1):534.
Meyer A, Coroiu A, Korner A. One-to-one peer support in cancer care: a review of scholarship published between 2007 and 2014. European Journal of Cancer Care. 2015;24(3):299-312.
Burke E, Pyle M, Machin K, Varese F, Morrison AP. The effects of peer support on empowerment, self-efficacy, and internalized stigma: A narrative synthesis and meta-analysis. Stigma and Health. 2019;4(3):337-56.
Hunt H, Abbott R, Boddy K, Whear R, Wakely L, Bethel A, et al. "They've walked the walk": A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence for parent-to-parent support for parents of babies in neonatal care. Journal of Neonatal Nursing. 2019;25(4):166-76.
Corrigan PW, Pickett S, Schmidt A, Stellon E, Hantke E, Kraus D. Peer navigators to promote engagement of homeless African Americans with serious mental illness in primary care. Psychiatry Research. 2017;255:101‐3.
Larsen IG, Gregersen Oestergaard L, Thomsen LM, Vinther Nielsen C, Schiottz-Christensen B. Effect of adding lay-tutors to the educational part of a back school programme for patients with subacute, non-specific low back pain: A randomized controlled clinical trial with a two-year follow-up. J Rehabil Med. 2019;51(9):698-704.
Sampson M, Clark A, Bachmann M, Garner N, Irvine L, Howe A, et al. Lifestyle intervention with or without lay volunteers to prevent type 2 diabetes in people with impaired fasting glucose and/or nondiabetic hyperglycemia: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2021;181(2):168-78.
Sullivan CM, Barnswell KV, Greenway K, Kamps CM, Wilson D, Albert JM, et al. Impact of navigators on first visit to a transplant center, waitlisting, and kidney transplantation: A randomized, controlled trial. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;13(10):1550-5.
Wang J. Loneliness and mental health in a randomised controlled trial of a peer-provided self-management intervention for people leaving crisis resolution teams: University College London; 2018.
Goossen K, Hess S, Lunny C, Pieper D. Database combinations to retrieve systematic reviews in overviews of reviews: a methodological study. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2020;20(1):138.
Gargon E, Williamson PR, Clarke M. Collating the knowledge base for core outcome set development: developing and appraising the search strategy for a systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2015;15(1):26.
Halladay CW, Trikalinos TA, Schmid IT, Schmid CH, Dahabreh IJ. Using data sources beyond PubMed has a modest impact on the results of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(9):1076-84.
Ewald H, Klerings I, Wagner G, Heise TL, Stratil JM, Lhachimi SK, et al. Searching two or more databases decreased the risk of missing relevant studies: a metaresearch study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;149:154-64.
Hirt J, Bergmann J, Karrer M. Overlaps of multiple database retrieval and citation tracking in dementia care research: a methodological study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021;109(2):275-85.
Aagaard T, Lund H, Juhl C. Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews - are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):161.
Cooper C, Booth A, Britten N, Garside R. A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review. Systematic Reviews. 2017;6(1):234.
Hirt J, Nordhausen T, Fuerst T, Ewald H, Appenzeller-Herzog C. Guidance on terminology, application, and reporting of citation searching: the TARCiS statement. Bmj. 2024;385:e078384.
Levay P, Ainsworth N, Kettle R, Morgan A. Identifying evidence for public health guidance: a comparison of citation searching with Web of Science and Google Scholar. Res Synth Methods. 2016;7(1):34-45.
Cantrell A, Booth A, Chambers D. A systematic review case study of urgent and emergency care configuration found citation searching of Web of Science and Google Scholar of similar value. Health Info Libr J. 2022.
Rogers M, Bethel A, Briscoe S. Resources for forwards citation searching for implementation studies in dementia care: A case study comparing Web of Science and Scopus. Research Synthesis Methods. 2020;11(3):379-86.
Bramer WM. Reference checking for systematic reviews using Endnote. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(4):542-6.
Haddaway NR, Grainger MJ, Gray CT. Citationchaser: A tool for transparent and efficient forward and backward citation chasing in systematic searching. Res Synth Methods. 2022;13(4):533-45.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Alison C. Bethel, Naomi Shaw, Rebecca Abbot, Morwenna Rogers, Anna Price, Rob Anderson, Sian de Bell, Jo Thompson Coon
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
