Cargando…

Data visualisation in scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics: a cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND: Scoping reviews and evidence maps are forms of evidence synthesis that aim to map the available literature on a topic and are well-suited to visual presentation of results. A range of data visualisation methods and interactive data visualisation tools exist that may make scoping reviews...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: South, Emily, Rodgers, Mark
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10433592/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37587522
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02309-y
_version_ 1785091683115859968
author South, Emily
Rodgers, Mark
author_facet South, Emily
Rodgers, Mark
author_sort South, Emily
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Scoping reviews and evidence maps are forms of evidence synthesis that aim to map the available literature on a topic and are well-suited to visual presentation of results. A range of data visualisation methods and interactive data visualisation tools exist that may make scoping reviews more useful to knowledge users. The aim of this study was to explore the use of data visualisation in a sample of recent scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics, with a particular focus on interactive data visualisation. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE ALL was searched for recent scoping reviews and evidence maps (June 2020-May 2021), and a sample of 300 papers that met basic selection criteria was taken. Data were extracted on the aim of each review and the use of data visualisation, including types of data visualisation used, variables presented and the use of interactivity. Descriptive data analysis was undertaken of the 238 reviews that aimed to map evidence. RESULTS: Of the 238 scoping reviews or evidence maps in our analysis, around one-third (37.8%) included some form of data visualisation. Thirty-five different types of data visualisation were used across this sample, although most data visualisations identified were simple bar charts (standard, stacked or multi-set), pie charts or cross-tabulations (60.8%). Most data visualisations presented a single variable (64.4%) or two variables (26.1%). Almost a third of the reviews that used data visualisation did not use any colour (28.9%). Only two reviews presented interactive data visualisation, and few reported the software used to create visualisations. CONCLUSIONS: Data visualisation is currently underused by scoping review authors. In particular, there is potential for much greater use of more innovative forms of data visualisation and interactive data visualisation. Where more innovative data visualisation is used, scoping reviews have made use of a wide range of different methods. Increased use of these more engaging visualisations may make scoping reviews more useful for a range of stakeholders. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-023-02309-y.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10433592
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104335922023-08-18 Data visualisation in scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics: a cross-sectional analysis South, Emily Rodgers, Mark Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Scoping reviews and evidence maps are forms of evidence synthesis that aim to map the available literature on a topic and are well-suited to visual presentation of results. A range of data visualisation methods and interactive data visualisation tools exist that may make scoping reviews more useful to knowledge users. The aim of this study was to explore the use of data visualisation in a sample of recent scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics, with a particular focus on interactive data visualisation. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE ALL was searched for recent scoping reviews and evidence maps (June 2020-May 2021), and a sample of 300 papers that met basic selection criteria was taken. Data were extracted on the aim of each review and the use of data visualisation, including types of data visualisation used, variables presented and the use of interactivity. Descriptive data analysis was undertaken of the 238 reviews that aimed to map evidence. RESULTS: Of the 238 scoping reviews or evidence maps in our analysis, around one-third (37.8%) included some form of data visualisation. Thirty-five different types of data visualisation were used across this sample, although most data visualisations identified were simple bar charts (standard, stacked or multi-set), pie charts or cross-tabulations (60.8%). Most data visualisations presented a single variable (64.4%) or two variables (26.1%). Almost a third of the reviews that used data visualisation did not use any colour (28.9%). Only two reviews presented interactive data visualisation, and few reported the software used to create visualisations. CONCLUSIONS: Data visualisation is currently underused by scoping review authors. In particular, there is potential for much greater use of more innovative forms of data visualisation and interactive data visualisation. Where more innovative data visualisation is used, scoping reviews have made use of a wide range of different methods. Increased use of these more engaging visualisations may make scoping reviews more useful for a range of stakeholders. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-023-02309-y. BioMed Central 2023-08-17 /pmc/articles/PMC10433592/ /pubmed/37587522 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02309-y Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
South, Emily
Rodgers, Mark
Data visualisation in scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics: a cross-sectional analysis
title Data visualisation in scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics: a cross-sectional analysis
title_full Data visualisation in scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics: a cross-sectional analysis
title_fullStr Data visualisation in scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics: a cross-sectional analysis
title_full_unstemmed Data visualisation in scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics: a cross-sectional analysis
title_short Data visualisation in scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics: a cross-sectional analysis
title_sort data visualisation in scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics: a cross-sectional analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10433592/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37587522
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02309-y
work_keys_str_mv AT southemily datavisualisationinscopingreviewsandevidencemapsonhealthtopicsacrosssectionalanalysis
AT rodgersmark datavisualisationinscopingreviewsandevidencemapsonhealthtopicsacrosssectionalanalysis