Table 2.
Fulfilment of MAPS assessment of title and abstracta
| 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) |
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
bOnly 54 studies included abstracts that were available for assessment