Skip to main content

Table 1 Example evidence review map supporting tables (a) list of reviews assessed as relevant for inclusion, with review score and the identifier assigned to each individual review (either a number for meta-analyses, or a letter for narrative syntheses), (b) scope of meta-analyses that examine broad questions: region, taxa, MPA characteristic and outcome measure, and (c) scope of narrative syntheses that examine the specific question: broad focus and region.

From: Evidence maps and evidence gaps: evidence review mapping as a method for collating and appraising evidence reviews to inform research and policy

(a) Reviews assessed

 

Review identifier

Reference

CEESAT score

1

Meta-analytical reference 1

  

2

Meta-analytical reference 2

  

a

Narrative reference a

  

b

Narrative reference b

  

(b) Scope of meta-analyses

 

Scope

Review identifier

Region

Global

3, 6–9, 11–14, 16, 17

Tropicali

8, 10

Taxa

Fishii, iii, iv

1–3, 5, 6, 8, 10–18

Invertebrateii, iii, iv

6, 8, 15, 16, 18

MPA characteristic

Sizei, vi

1–3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18

Agev

1–3, 5, 7, 10–13, 15, 17, 18

Outcome measure

Abundance

1–18

Biomassvii, viii, ix

4–8, 17, 18

(c) Scope of narrative syntheses

 
 

Scope

FOCUS

Biodiversity

Fisheries

Region

Global

b, c, f, h, i

b, e, f, g, h, i

Temperate

d

d

Tropical

a

 
  1. Superscript roman numerals adjacent to ‘Scope’ in (b) are used to refer the end-user to relevant notes on additional reviews that consider the question but with less than the required number of primary studies or without reporting effect sizes