ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2025
Insights from search summary tables for evidence and gap maps: a case study on peer support interventions.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.