Gap map summary

How to use Sightsavers evidence gap maps

  • Evidence gap maps (EGMs) summarise and display evidence from systematic and literature reviews.
  • EGMs focus on the thematic areas relevant to international development and consolidate evidence applicable to low- and middle-income countries.
  • EGMs are based on a matrix framework designed to capture evidence on specific interventions or focus areas.
  • The focus areas for which reviews were identified are found along the x axis, and the strength of evidence is shown along the y axis.
  • The bubbles in the matrix cells denote the existence of a systematic or literature review examining the relevant focus area. Clicking on a bubble will open up a summary page.
  • The strength of evidence presented in the reviews is categorised as:
    • strong if the review found strong evidence in response to the research question or outcome
    • inconclusive if the review reported mixed results
    • weak if the review found weak or no evidence in response to the research question or outcome
  • Where the same review examined more than one focus area or outcome, the bubble representing this review is shown in more than one cell.
  • These EGMs use a traffic-light colour system to indicate the methodological quality of each review. The quality appraisal was done using an adapted version of the SURE checklist. Green, orange and red bubbles in the gap map cells represent High, Medium and Low confidence respectively.

High confidence means all review methods were systematic and appropriate, as specified in the appraisal checklist, and the risk of bias was minimised.

Medium confidence means all or some of the review methods were not systematic or appropriate, as specified in the appraisal checklist, but the methodological flaws and limitations were acknowledged and taken into account in the conclusions of the review.

Low confidence means all or some of the review methods were not systematic or appropriate, as specified in the appraisal checklist, and the methodological flaws and limitations were not acknowledged or taken into account in the conclusions of the review.

Information on the quality of individual studies included in each review can be found on summary pages, providing this information was reported in the review.

The cells where no reviews are shown indicate the areas where more evidence is required and where future research efforts should be directed.