Developing a published evidence map as a tool to identify and prioritise intervention types in Type-2 Diabetes management




Poster session 3 Friday: Evidence Tools / Evidence synthesis - creation, publication and updating in the digital age


Friday 15 September 2017 - 12:30 to 14:00


All authors in correct order:

SHIN E1, Jang J1, Yeon J1, Kim D1, Bae C2, Lee S3, Lee Y4
1 Research Center, Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS), Korea South
2 Department of Pediatrics, Kyunghee University School of Medicine, Korea South
3 Department of Internal Medicine, Cha University College of Medicine, Korea South
4 Department of Forensic Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Korea South
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:


Contact person:

Abstract text
Background: Published evidence mapping using systematic review methodology is an emerging important tool to identify and prioritise future research and intervention in broad topic areas.

Objectives: To develop an evidence map and identify interventions for prioritisation from the matrix findings, and compare publication gaps at domestic and global level in type-2 diabetes management.

Methods: To develop and provide an evidence map, a 3-staged process is executed. First, the context of evidence matrix was defined. The horizontal axis consisted of 6 types of study design and vertical axis consisted of 11 single type of intervention and multiple interventions. Second, to search and select relevant studies, we conducted two systematic searches using 4 Korean (KoreaMed, Kmbase, RISS, NDSL) and 3 global databases (Cochrane, Embase, PubMed). Third, data extraction and reporting on yield was performed including study characteristics, interventions and study design.

Results: We identified 207 international publications including 24 SR or meta-analysis (11.6%), 103 RCTs (49.8%), 25 quasi-experimental (12.1%), 14 cohorts (6.8%), and 17 one group before-after studies (8.2%). 48 Korean publications met inclusion criteria; 1 SR or meta-analysis (2.1%), 2 RCTs (4.2%), 31 quasi-experimental (64.6%), 0 cohorts (0.0%), and 9 one group before-after studies (18.8%). 19 of 207 (9.2%) for international and 18 of 48 (37.5%) for Korean publications were single intervention evidences. There were only two types of single intervention (education and training, screening) amongst Korean publications compared to those of international. International evidence matrix shows other single interventions such as self-management, counselling or consultation, reminder or prompts, mass media, policy approach or supportive environment with high quality of study designs.

Conclusions: Evidence mapping is one of categorisation systems. It can identify evidence gaps, inform future research topics or areas, and help to design effective interventions.