Skip to main content

Table 2 Fulfilment of MAPS assessment of title and abstracta

From: Review and critical appraisal of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database and application of the MAPS statement

MAPS sub-items Pre-2011 (n = 57)b 2011–2013 (n = 41) 2014–2015 (n = 29) 2016 (n = 17) Overall (%)
Title- used the term ‘mapping’ or synonym 23 (40%) 24 (59%) 19 (66%) 13 (76%) 78 (54%)
Title- indicated ‘source instrument’ 34 (60%) 27 (66%) 21 (72%) 11 (65%) 93 (65%)
Title- indicated ‘target instrument’ 32 (56%) 28 (68%) 18 (62%) 11 (65%) 89 (62%)
Abstract- Structured abstract 51 (94%) 39 (95%) 29 (100%) 15 (88%) 134 (95%)
Abstract- Objective of mapping stated 41 (76%) 33 (80%) 26 (90%) 14 (82%) 114 (81%)
Abstract- Data sources described 29 (54%) 21 (51%) 19 (66%) 14 (82%) 83 (59%)
Abstract- Source instrument described 46 (85%) 35 (85%) 27 (93%) 16 (94%) 124 (88%)
Abstract- Target instrument described 45 (83%) 37 (90%) 29 (100%) 17 (100%) 128 (91%)
Abstract- Models estimated described 21 (39%) 24 (59%) 20 (69%) 12 (71%) 77 (55%)
Abstract- Other methods described 13 (24%) 13 (32%) 14 (48%) 7 (41%) 47 (33%)
Abstract- Validation strategy described 13 (24%) 11 (27%) 12 (41%) 9 (53%) 45 (32%)
Abstract- Results appropriately reported 39 (72%) 28 (68%) 17 (59%) 11 (65%) 95 (67%)
Abstract- Model performance reported 34 (63%) 23 (56%) 17 (59%) 10 (59%) 84 (60%)
Abstract- Implications of research reported 38 (70%) 33 (80%) 25 (86%) 15 (88%) 111 (79%)
Mean (SD) total abstract score 7.28 (2.93) 7.83 (2.66) 8.83 (1.59) 8.82 (1.77) 7.95 (2.56)
  1. aThis table highlights the number and proportion of studies in each time period across the MAPS items checklist that fully met each criterion; studies that partially met criteria were included in the total abstract score, but not in the percentage of studies meeting each criterion
  2. bOnly 54 studies included abstracts that were available for assessment