Table 2 Evidence map presentations and domains used to classify data in the evidence maps

Althuis, 2013 [35]

“Evidence map of publications of sugar-sweetened beverages by outcome and study type”(F2): flow diagram; yes, “Evidence map of published cohort and intervention studies of sugar-sweetened beverages by outcome and key study features” (F3): flow diagram and cross-tabular table hybrid; yes

x

x

x

x

x

x

Antsee, 2011 [40]

“The matrix” (F1): cross-tabular table with color-coded subdivisions in each cell; yes

x

x

Prevention area: several important areas within HIV prevention research that represent potential for novel and innovative research of interest (e.g., education, behavior, service delivery, descriptive epidemiology, international adaptability, etc.)

Bailey, 2014 [44]

“Distribution of included prevention studies” (T1), “Distribution of included disorder established treatment studies” (T2), “Distribution of included relapse prevention studies” (T3): cross-tabular table; each table is a subset

x

x

x

Intervention type: larger categories interventions fall within (e.g. psychological, biological, service, universal, at-risk)

Berger, 2014 [45]

"Frequency of intervention comparisons within outcome groups, by baseline health status in trials" (F2), "Frequency of intervention comparisons among cardiometabolic outcomes, by baseline health in trials" (F3): bubble plot using color and bubble size; yes

x

x

x

x

Bonell, 2013 [46]

"Countries of primary research of studies included in the evidence map"(F3), "Health topics of the references included in the evidence map" (F4), "School/grade level of the references included in the evidence map" (F5), "Aspect of the school examined in the references included in the evidence map" (F6): bar chart, yes

x

x

Health topic

Brennan, 2014 [43]

“Example evidence map for associational studies for childcare food and beverage policies and environments” (F2), “Example evidence map for intervention studies for childcare food and beverage policies and environments” (F3): conceptual model mapping strategy to outcomes; no, example only

x

x

x

Short/intermediate/long-term outcome groups

Chung, 2011 [39]

“Studies stratified by design and anatomic region imaged” (F4), “Studies stratified by design and device category” (F5): bubble plot and cross-tabular hybrid, within each cell bubbles of varying size and color; yes

x

x

x

Coast, 2012 [47]

"Relationships between postnatal depression and poverty identified in the mapping" (T3): cross-tabular table; yes

x

x

x

x

x

Poverty indicator

Also present table of study characteristics (T1); yes

Coeytaux, 2014 [48, 49]

"Characteristics of Systematic Reviews Evaluating Yoga for All Eligible Conditions" (T1): cross-tabular table; yes

x

x

x

x

SR quality, SR methods

"RCTs evaluating yoga" (F2): bubble plot with bubble size; yes

DeFrank, 2014 [42]

“Number of studies assessing categories of psychological harms and rates of overdiagnosis” (F2): bar graph with color-coded subdivisions; yes

x

x

Assessing burden/frequency/both

El-Behadli, 2015 [50]

"Evidence in Peer-Reviewed Publications of Translation Methods" (T2), "Evidence in Peer-Reviewed JournalsRegardingRestandardization of Translations" (T3): cross-tabular table; yes

Language, screener translated, translation methods

Greer, 2012 [38]

“Summary of studies on wheeled mobility service delivery” (T2): Cross-tabular table; yes

x

Elements of service delivery: factors important to individuals when considering wheeled mobility options, children’s caregivers’ and parents’ opinions about the wheeled mobility used by their child, user satisfaction

Hempel, 2014 [51]

"Evidence map of mindfulness": bubble plot; yes

x

x

x

x

x

Hempel, 2014 [41, 58]

“Evidence map of acupuncture for pain” (F3), “Evidence map of acupuncture for wellness” (F4),“Evidence map of acupuncture formental health” (F5): bubble plots with color and bubble size as dimensions in addition to x and y axes; each diagram is a subset

x

x

x

x

Hempel, 2014 [52]

"Evidence map of tai chi" (F2): bubble plot; yes

x

x

x

x

Hitch, 2012 [53]

"Available evidence by diagnosis and focused psychological therapy" (T2), "Availableevidence by diagnosis and level of evidence" (T3), "Quality of evidence by intervention" (T4): cross-tabular format; yes

x

x

x

Jaramillo, 2013 [37]

“Map of Evidence for Osteoarthritis Template” (F3): cross-tabular table; no Online appendix version has research questions all mapped to grid

Studies are not classified this map classifies research question developed from workshop discussions

Kadiyala, 2014 [54]

"Mapping the agriculture-nutrition pathways in India"(F1) with "Number of studies included in the evidence review by agriculture-nutrition pathways and study design" (T2): conceptual model with companion cross-tabular display; yes

x

x

x

x

pathways between factors

Nihashi, 2013 [36]

“Current clinical evidence on PET in glioma” (F2): three dimensional cross-tabular visualizationusing color and stacked discs of varying size; yes

x

x

x

Northway, 2005 [55]

"Examples of key concerns and good practice" (T2): cross-tabular; examples only

Sawicki, 2015 [56]

"Microbiome Outcomes Examined by Fiber Type" (F4), "Other Health Outcomes Examined with the Microbiome by Fiber Type" (F5): bubble plots, yes

x

x

x

x

Singh, 2012 [57]

"Interventions for prediabetes investigated in systematic reviews" (T4), "Outcomes assessed in systematic reviews of prediabetes" (T5), "Ratings of authors’ overall conclusions about interventions"(T6): cross-tabular, yes

x

x

x

x

x

Vallarino, 2015 [59]

"Evidence map of all 29 studies of psychological interventions for the early stages of bipolar disorder" (F2): flow chart; yes

x

x

x

Wang, 2015 [60]

"Bubble Plot of LCS Studies by Study Duration and by Health Outcome Groups" (F3): bubble plot, yes

x

x

x

x

x

Study duration

"Study Design and Population Characteristics" (T2): cross-tabular, yes

GEM [16, 62, 64, 65]

“Example of ‘interventions and study design output’” (T3): Cross-tabular table; no, “example only”, “Example of ‘detailed study characteristics output (extract only)’” (T4): evidence table; no “example only

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Headspace [17, 61, 63, 66]

x

x

x

Callahan, 2012 [63]

“Distribution of included universal preventive studies” (F2), “Distribution of included indicated and selective preventive studies” (F3), “Distribution of included studies to treat a diagnosed depressive disorder” (F4): Flow diagram; each diagram is a subset

De Silva, 2013 [61]

“The distribution of included trials in categories during second-stage screening” (F2): flow diagram; yes

Liu, 2010 [66]

“Distribution of included… studies” (F2): flow diagram; yes