PROTOCOL: Health Visiting Interventions With 0\u20135 Year Olds and Their Families: An Evidence and Gap Map

This issue of Campbell Systematic Reviews includes the first two evidence and gap maps (EGMs) to be published by the Campbell Collaboration. The first is a map of 396 studies of the impact of agroforestry on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services and human well-being (Miller et al., 2019), copublished with the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie). The other EGM is of 166 studies on the effectiveness of interventions for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries (Saran et al., 2020). EGMs are becoming increasing popular as an approach to systematically identify, report and visualise the range of research activity in broad topic areas or policy domains. EGMs can provide a foundation for further, more focused research synthesis. They guide users to high-quality research, inform research priority setting and help to define the focus of evidence synthesis such as systematic reviews. EGMs typically show what evidence is there, not what the evidence says, though there are exceptions. However, one needs to be cautious of the application and use of these publications. There are various methods of mapping evidence (Saran and White 2018; Snilstveit 2014), which means all EGMs are not alike. A range of different approaches to evidence mapping and synthesis has been developed to support evidence-informed policymaking. Each agency producing maps has a different approach, and it usually lies in one of the eight components of the EGM definitions: scope, type of evidence included, content of the map, structure of the map, transparency, visual or graphical display, map description and intended users. For example, for nearly all the agencies, EGMs generally have a broad thematic scope covering a range of interventions and outcomes, except for the Evidence-Based Policing Matrix (EBPM), which has just one outcome rather than set of outcomes. The EBPM is also an exception in being one of the maps that report what the evidence says (size, direction and significance of effects). Approaches vary in terms of presentation of maps as well. Some use visualisation, like 3ie and Campbell, whereas others only present findings as descriptive reports such as the Global Evidence Mapping Initiative and the Collaboration of Environmental Evidence. Campbell has a long-standing track record of being one of the pioneers in synthesising and promoting the dissemination of high-quality, unbiased evidence and helping our readership to understand why standards and principles in evidence-making matters. This devotion goes into the setting of conduct and reporting standards for evidence mapping. Campbell EGMs include a visual presentation of the evidence as a matrix. Most usually, the matrix shows intervention categories (rows) and outcome domain (columns). The map may have additional dimensions capturing study or intervention characteristics, such as study design, location and population sub-group, which can be applied as filters. The map is interactive: users click on entries to see a list of studies, and on study names to access a database record for the study. Campbell has produced and innovated in maps to a range of research questions. They can be applied to a range of research questions such as of studies of effects, prevalence, implementation and barriers or facilitators. The type of evidence included in the EGM depends on the research questions. A mega-map (Saran et al., 2019) includes only systematic reviews and EGMs, while a typical effectiveness map will include systematic review and impact evaluations. There is even a "map of maps" that includes only other EGMs (Phillips et al., 2017). Developing the framework, in particular the primary dimensions (row and column headings) is the most important—and often the most difficult—part of developing an evidence map. The secondary dimensions may comprise study design, population, region, country and can be used as filters for relevant evidence. Stakeholder consultation, particularly consultation with the funder(s), is an important stage in developing the map—most notably the framework. The title of the EGMs should define the scope of the map. EGMs have a broader scope than systematic reviews and the scope is defined by PICOS. The reports are always accompanied by plain language summaries to facilitate research use. It is desirable to have a maintenance plan to update maps annually. Campbell has been working with different stakeholder agencies on innovations in evidence mapping. As already mentioned, we have worked on maps with different scopes: EGMs, mega-maps and the map of maps. Whilst most maps to date are effectiveness maps, we have also produced maps of process evaluations for interventions for people experiencing homelessness, and one of tools, methods and metrics for studies analysing nutrition-agriculture linkages. Country evaluation maps capture all evaluations of socioeconomic interventions in a single country—such maps are ongoing for Kenya, Uganda and the Indian state of Karnataka. There is also a map of just effectiveness studies for India. As intended, maps are used in various ways. The child welfare mega-map was used by UNICEF in its decision to fund an EGM of violence against children. The homelessness maps commissioned by the Centre for Homelessness Impact are being used as the basis for three systematic reviews. The Uganda Country Evaluation Map is being used in the planning process by the Office of the Prime Minister. Do you have an interesting idea, topic or suggestions for an EGM? We would love to hear your thoughts. You can also register with us to join the innovation!

To examine how continually updated, living evidence and gap maps (L-EGMs) with an online presence report planned update schedules, retirement plans, living status, use of automation across review stages, and the methodological guidance cited to support their conduct and reporting. A cross-sectoral scoping review of digital L-EGM interfaces, which act as foundational support tools for decision-makers by providing a visual and interactive summary of all available evidence, as well as evidence gaps. Targeted searches were conducted in Google search engine (June 2022 and April/September 2025), Web of Science Core Collection and MEDLINE (January 2026), supplemented by records from a methodology review and additional EGMs found through supporting documentation of included maps, or known to the research team. Forty-four L-EGMs, predominantly health sector-related, met the eligibility criteria. Half of the digital interfaces cited big picture review guidance in their associated documentation, 11% cited (living) systematic review guidance, and 39% did not cite any overarching synthesis typology or living evidence synthesis guidance. Fifty-seven percent reported a fixed update schedule with planned update frequencies varying from daily to every 2 years (median: 1 month), but most did not clarify whether schedules differed across update stages. Only 14% reported retirement plans and 39% indicated whether the L-EGM is still living. Automation or semiautomation was reported in 70% of L-EGMs. Fifty-nine percent used it for searching, 45% for screening and 34% for coding, with many reporting automation across multiple stages. In addition, three L-EGMs used a natural language processing-based risk of bias assessment tool. Twenty-five percent of L-EGMs reported context-specific automation performance metrics or validation approaches. We identified a growing body of digital, living EGMs that use automation-especially machine learning-that could be systematically reviewed. Reviewers and methodologists should further assess the potential for automating EGMs, their actual living mode parameters, methodological changes, and how these are reported across web-based versus conventional outputs, working toward a consensus on map-specific guidance. Until such guidance is established, authors of living EGMs can follow existing recommendations for responsible automation, living systematic reviews, and other living evidence syntheses PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study examined 'living' evidence and gap maps. These maps are online tools that show where research evidence exists and where important gaps remain. They are meant to be updated regularly as new research is published. The authors identified 44 living evidence and gap maps (L-EGMs) and looked at how they are updated, whether they use automated methods, and how clearly these methods are described. They found that L-EGMs are becoming more common, especially in health research, and are often built using specialised software platforms. Most maps claimed they are updated at regular intervals, but few clearly reported whether they are still being updated, how often key steps (like incorporating new studies) are repeated, or whether there is a plan to stop updating them in the future. About 70% of the maps used some form of automated method, most often to find new studies and help decide whether they were relevant to include. Over half used machine learning (ML), of which a small number used newer artificial intelligence methods. However, authors rarely explained how these tools were used or tested, and there was very little evidence on whether these automated methods were efficient and accurate. The study also found that many L-EGMs do not follow existing guidance. The authors conclude that tailored guidance is urgently needed to ensure that L-EGMs are transparent and reliable. This is important if they are used to help allocate limited research resources, for example, in health care.

The use of e-cigarettes may influence later smoking uptake in young people. Evidence and gap maps (EGMs) are interactive on-line tools that display the evidence and gaps in a specific area of policy or research. The aim of this study was to map clusters and gaps in evidence exploring the relationship between e-cigarette use or availability and subsequent combustible tobacco use in people aged < 30 years. We conducted an EGM of primary studies and systematic reviews. A framework and an interactive EGM was developed in consultation with an expert advisory group. A systematic search of five databases retrieved 9057 records, from which 134 studies were included. Systematic reviews were appraised using AMSTAR-2, and all included studies were coded into the EGM framework resulting in the interactive web-based EGM. A descriptive analysis of key characteristics of the identified evidence clusters and gaps resulted in this report. Studies were completed between 2015 and 2023, with the first systematic reviews being published in 2017. Most studies were conducted in western high-income countries, predominantly the United States. Cohort studies were the most frequently used study design. The evidence is clustered on e-cigarette use as an exposure, with an absolute gap identified for evidence looking into the availability of e-cigarettes and subsequent cessation of cigarette smoking. We also found little evidence analysing equity factors, and little exploring characteristics of e-cigarette devices. This evidence and gap map (EGM) offers a tool to explore the available evidence regarding the e-cigarette use/availability and later cigarette smoking in people under the age of 30 years at the time of the search. The majority of the 134 reports is from high-income countries, with an uneven geographic distribution. Most of the systematic reviews are of lower quality, suggesting the need for higher-quality reviews. The evidence is clustered around e-cigarette use as an exposure and subsequent frequency/intensity of current combustible tobacco use. Gaps in evidence focusing on e-cigarette availability, as well as on the influence of equity factors may warrant further research. This EGM can support funders and researchers in identifying future research priorities, while guiding practitioners and policymakers to the current evidence base.

To systematically map the landscape of central venous access device research from 2014 to 2024, identifying critical gaps in evidence that may impact nursing practice and patient outcomes across the full device lifecycle from selection through to removal. This review was conducted in accordance with the Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map and reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Complete, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched with additional hand-searching of reference lists from included reviews. We systematically reviewed literature published between 2014 and 2024, mapping 710 studies on central venous access device interventions and outcomes. Studies were categorised by design, population, setting, device characteristics, intervention types, and outcomes. Evidence was evaluated using the National Health and Medical Research Council levels of evidence framework. Of 710 included studies, 89 were systematic reviews and 621 primary studies, of which 41.1% (n = 292) were randomised controlled trials. Research was primarily conducted in high-income countries (n = 405, 65.2%) and focused on adults (n = 370, 59.6%) in hospital inpatient settings (n = 588, 94.7%). Catheter insertion and infection prevention dominated the evidence base, while device selection and removal procedures were less studied. Infection outcomes were extensively reported (bloodstream infection: n = 455, 13.6% of 3349 outcomes), while patient-reported outcomes (n = 218, 6.5%) and cost (n = 60, 1.8%) were underrepresented. This review reveals that central venous access device research is predominantly focused on insertion and infection prevention while other key parts of nursing practice are under-supported. Future nursing research should address these gaps to improve evidence-based care across diverse populations and healthcare contexts, particularly focusing on understudied device types, settings, and vulnerable populations. This review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map. This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct, or reporting.

This is the protocol for an evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: this evidence and gap map (EGM) aims to identify, map, and provide an overview of the existing evidence and gaps on the impact of different types of physical infrastructure on various outcomes of low‐income consumers' nutritious diet, women's economic empowerment, and gender equality in low‐ and middle‐income countries. The specific objectives of the EGM are: (1) identify clusters of evidence that offer opportunities for evidence synthesis and (2) identify gaps in evidence where new studies, research, and evaluations are needed.

Remote monitoring involves the measurement of an aspect of a patient's health without that person being seen face to face. It could benefit the individual and aid the efficient provision of health services. However, remote monitoring can be used to monitor different aspects of health in different ways. This evidence map allows users to find evidence on different forms of remote monitoring for different conditions easily to support the commissioning and implementation of interventions. The aim of this map was to provide an overview of the volume, diversity and nature of recent systematic reviews on the effectiveness, acceptability and implementation of remote monitoring for adults with long-term physical health conditions. We searched MEDLINE, nine further databases and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews published between 2018 and March 2022, PROSPERO for continuing reviews, and completed citation chasing on included studies. (Study selection and Study appraisal): Included systematic reviews focused on adult populations with a long-term physical health condition and reported on the effectiveness, acceptability or implementation of remote monitoring. All forms of remote monitoring where data were passed to a healthcare professional as part of the intervention were included. Data were extracted on the characteristics of the remote monitoring intervention and outcomes assessed in the review. AMSTAR 2 was used to assess quality. Results were presented in an interactive evidence and gap map and summarised narratively. Stakeholder and public and patient involvement groups provided feedback throughout the project. We included 72 systematic reviews. Of these, 61 focus on the effectiveness of remote monitoring and 24 on its acceptability and/or implementation, with some reviews reporting on both. The majority contained studies from North America and Europe (38 included studies from the United Kingdom). Patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes and respiratory conditions were the most studied populations. Data were collected predominantly using common devices such as blood pressure monitors and transmitted via applications, websites, e-mail or patient portals, feedback provided via telephone call and by nurses. In terms of outcomes, most reviews focused on physical health, mental health and well-being, health service use, acceptability or implementation. Few reviews reported on less common conditions or on the views of carers or healthcare professionals. Most reviews were of low or critically low quality. Many terms are used to describe remote monitoring; we searched as widely as possible but may have missed some relevant reviews. Poor reporting of remote monitoring interventions may mean some included reviews contain interventions that do not meet our definition, while relevant reviews might have been excluded. This also made the interpretation of results difficult. The map provides an interactive, visual representation of evidence on the effectiveness of remote monitoring and its acceptability and successful implementation. This evidence could support the commissioning and delivery of remote monitoring interventions, while the limitations and gaps could inform further research and technological development. Future reviews should follow the guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and investigate the application of remote monitoring in less common conditions. A protocol was registered on the OSF registry (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6Q7P4). This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135450) as part of a series of evidence syntheses under award NIHR130538. For more information, visit https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR135450 and https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR130538. The report is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further project information.

To support the New Zealand Police Understanding Policing Delivery (UPD) project, we were tasked with completing an academic literature review on bias in policing. However, the vastness and complexity of the relevant research, and the short timeframe for completion meant that it was not possible to complete a single literature review that accurately reflected the evidence base; indeed, it would be difficult to do justice to this literature in a single review under any circumstances. Thus, rather than attempting a traditional literature review, we developed an evidence and gap map of the international research on bias in policing. In this report, we present the rationale, methods used, and key features of the studies on the evidence and gap map (referred to as the ‘evidence map’). This evidence map serves several purposes. Its overarching purpose is to be a resource for more targeted work on specific areas of apparent disparity in policing, including areas prioritised by New Zealand Police as part of the UPD project: decisions about stops, charges, and the use of force. Researchers will be able to use the map to easily identify a) the extent of research in the area of interest, and b) the key features of the research that has been conducted in that area, as a basis. The map will guide rapid evidence reviews and future primary research, both of which can be used to design police practice-based interventions to reduce police-generated disparities in New Zealand.

This is the protocol for a evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: to identify existing research and gaps in evidence according to the types of interventions, settings, study design and outcomes; to use the EGM findings to inform subsequent systematic reviews and to identify gaps in evidence to inform future research, policy or practice.

Cannabis use during pregnancy is becoming more prevalent. While numerous studies have explored the relationship of cannabis use during pregnancy and outcomes for mothers and infants, uncertainty remains regarding the impact of cannabis use on pregnancy complications and later-life outcomes for offspring. To produce a summary of the short and long-term effects of prenatal cannabis exposure on fetal growth and development, neonatal conditions, later-life, and maternal outcomes. An overview of systematic reviews, an evidence and gap map, targeted updates of previous reviews, and de novo evidence synthesis was conducted. The databases searched include PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information); MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid) and CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCO). Assessment of risk of bias was conducted in duplicate for all studies. Relevant studies were coded and are presented as an evidence and gap map. Where possible, meta-analyses were conducted with a narrative synthesis of the results. Primary studies and systematic reviews examining the relationship between cannabis consumption in pregnancy and the effect on fetal/child development, antenatal, and obstetric outcomes during pregnancy were eligible for inclusion. There were 89 studies/reviews eligible for inclusion in this review. There was a potentially harmful impact of prenatal cannabis exposure on all fetal growth and development outcomes, some neonatal outcomes, some later-life outcomes, and some maternal outcomes. The evidence regarding other neonatal conditions, later-life, and maternal outcomes was mixed. The evidence suggests cannabis should be avoided during pregnancy.

Evidence mapping began in the early 2000s and has taken off in the last ten years, notably with the innovation of an online interactive visual Evidence and Gap Map by the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) and the different types of maps produced by the Campbell Collaboration. In the CEDIL Methods brief, ‘Evidence and gap maps: Using maps to support evidence-based development’, Howard White, Research Director, CEDIL, describes what evidence and gap maps are, what sort of evidence is being mapped, and the various ways in which these maps are being used and how you can commission one.

ObjectivesWe set out to produce an evidence and gap map (EGM) on health care service interventions to improve health care outcomes for hospitalised patients with extreme obesity. Hospitalised patients with extreme obesity have poorer health care outcomes compared to normal weight patients. We also considered how hospital services can be coordinated and delivered to meet the care needs of patients with extreme obesity.MethodsA standardised five-stage EGM method was used to develop an intervention-outcome framework; identify current evidence; critically appraise the quality of evidence, extract, code, and summarise data in relation to the EGM objectives; and create a visualisation map to present findings. EPPI Reviewer Web software was used to generate an interactive EGM. The intervention-outcome framework was developed from internationally recognised health system performance and quality standards. This framework consisted of nine intervention (specialist workforce, special care pathways, assessment tools, equipment, moving and handling, specialist care areas, education, care bundles/packages, patient mobility) and six outcome categories (safety, effectiveness, efficiency, timely access, patient experience, health equity). Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews and primary studies that reported on health service interventions aimed to improve health care outcomes for patients with extreme obesity in the inpatient setting. Thirteen electronic databases were searched to identify studies for eligibility. The original searches were completed between November 2021 and March 2022. A repeat search was completed in August 2023.ResultsOf the 64,574 studies retrieved, 247 met eligibility criteria. Most of the excluded studies specifically related to bariatric weight loss surgical procedures or interventional techniques which could not be more broadly generalised to health care service provision. Of the 247 studies included, most studies (210; 85%) involved special care pathway interventions that related to specific points on a patient's health care journey such as peri-operative care, surgical recovery pathways, and airway support and pain management. Few studies focused on interventions related to a holistic patient-centred approach to care for patients with extreme obesity. Limited evidence existed on specific interventions that focused on safe moving and handling (26; 12.4%) and patient mobility (5; 2%). The most frequently measured outcomes were patient deterioration (193; 78%), patient injury (145; 59%) and medication safety (84; 34%).ConclusionsCurrent evidence predominantly focuses on isolated bariatric surgery patients rather than system-wide care delivery with a lack of evidence on addressing health care inequities between patients with extreme obesity and those of normal weight. This EGM provides an interactive resource to guide policymakers and service commissioners in developing comprehensive hospital services and to support clinicians in implementing coordinated care pathways. Researchers can use this EGM to identify and address gaps in evidence for integrated care approaches. Urgent research is needed to develop evidence-based frameworks for safe, dignified care delivery in the inpatient setting. This will ensure health care systems can effectively support patients with extreme obesity beyond specialised bariatric settings.

Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is a common acute complication of diabetes with treatment consisting of reversal of cause, insulin administration, fluid resuscitation and electrolyte repletion. Yet, many aspects of DKA management are currently based on low-quality evidence or physiological rationale. This evidence and gap map review presents an overview of the current body of literature and identifies evidence gaps in relation to therapeutic interventions for DKA. Interventions and outcomes relevant to DKA were identified and iteratively developed to produce a coding model for the proposed evidence and gap map. PubMed was searched with Me SH terms relevant to the identified interventions and outcomes. Studies identified were screened and assigned interventions and outcomes. Interventional research was uploaded to EPPI-Reviewer and EPPI-Mapper to produce the evidence and gap map. The search identified 1131 studies, of which 18 were non-human and 345 were duplicates. A total of 768 unique studies were screened, and 118 were identified as interventions (52 pediatric and 66 adult studies). A total of 26 high-quality studies, 88 medium-quality studies and 4 low-quality studies were identified. These 118 studies were coded into the proposed DKA evidence and gap map. The intervention domains were fluid therapy, insulin therapy, electrolyte replacement, adjunct therapies and admission type. The outcome domains were DKA resolution, insulin duration, length of stay, morbidity and mortality, complications, and biochemical parameters. Fluid type and insulin infusion administration were prominent in the current literature. These studies frequently used DKA resolution and complications associated with DKA such as electrolyte disturbances and cerebral edema as the primary outcomes. Substantial gaps were identified with scant evidence to guide prophylactic electrolyte administration, enteral intake and adjunctive therapy (thiamine, bicarbonate). Even for well-investigated interventions such as fluids and insulin, substantial gaps existed, particularly for patient-centered and healthcare service outcomes.

Poor access to pediatric chronic pain care is a longstanding concern. The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated virtual care delivery at an unprecedented pace and scale. We conducted a scoping review to create an interactive Evidence and Gap Map of virtual care solutions across a stepped care continuum (ie, from self-directed to specialist care) for youth with chronic pain and their families. Review methodology was codesigned with 8 youth with chronic pain and 7 parents/caregivers. Data sources included peer-reviewed scientific literature, gray literature (app stores and web sites), and a call for innovations. Records were independently coded and assessed for quality. Overall, 185 records were included (105 scientific records, 56 apps, 16 web sites, and 8 innovations). Most virtual care solutions were applicable across pediatric chronic pain diagnoses, with the greatest proportion at lower levels of stepped care (ie, >100 self-guided apps and web sites). Virtual delivery of psychological strategies was common. Evidence gaps were noted at higher levels of stepped care (ie, requiring more resource and health professional involvement), integration with health records, communication with health professionals, web accessibility, and content addressing social/family support, medications, school, substance use, sleep, diet, and acute pain flares or crises. Evidence and Gap Maps are a novel visual knowledge synthesis tool, which enable rapid evidence-informed decision-making by patients and families, health professionals, and policymakers. This evidence and gap map identified high-quality virtual care solutions for immediate scale and spread and areas with no evidence in need of prioritization. Virtual care should address priorities identified by youth with chronic pain and their families.

Objective To map the available evidence informing the care and management of people living with motor neurone disease (MND), including evidence pertaining to carers, asymptomatic genetic carriers, family, friends and healthcare professionals caring for people with MND. Introduction MND is a devasting neurodegenerative disease that has no cure and eventually leads to paralysis, progressive speech difficulties and respiratory failure. There are a plethora of interventions to support people living with MND, however, information regarding these interventions is often not organised in a manner that best supports the MND community. An evidence and gap map will provide a visual presentation that highlights the existing evidence that is available to support specific interventions, and indicate where there is no evidence. This will help inform future guideline and research efforts. Inclusion Criteria Studies if they describe care interventions for people living with MND, carers, asymptomatic genetic carriers, family, friends and healthcare professionals caring for people with MND. Peer‐reviewed randomised controlled trials, and nonrandomised studies of interventions, systematic reviews and qualitative studies describing the experience of an intervention will be included. Methods An evidence and gap map will be conducted according to Campbell guidance and JBI guidance for scoping reviews. A comprehensive search of academic databases and clinical trial registries will be performed to identify eligible studies. An evidence inclusion framework has been developed with members of the MND community. Data screening and extraction will be independently performed by two reviewers. The evidence and gap map will be presented using EPPI Reviewer. Review Registration This protocol has been uploaded to the Australian Motor Neurone Disease (MND) Guideline Open Science Framework page ( https://osf.io/c2ezm/ ).

BackgroundAlthough the number of teledermatology studies is increasing, not all variables have been researched in equal depth, so there remains a lack of robust evidence for some teledermatology initiatives. This review describes the landscape of teledermatology research and identifies knowledge gaps and research needs. This evidence map can be used to inform clinicians about the current knowledge about teledermatology and guide researchers for future studies.MethodsOur evidence map was conducted according to the Campbell Collaboration checklist for evidence and gap maps. Eight databases were searched (CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, and OpenGray), and only included systematic reviews of teledermatology involving humans published in English; while excluding non-systematic reviews (i.e., abstracts, conference proceedings, editorials, commentaries, or letters). From 909 records, 14 systematic reviews published between 2004 and 2022 were included. Our analysis focused on the systematic reviews’ characteristics, dermatological conditions studied, rate of overlap and quality assessment of primary studies reviewed, and main findings reported.ResultsTeledermatology was reportedly comparable with clinic dermatology and generally accepted by patients as a mode of care delivery for dermatological conditions. However, there are concerns about privacy, communication, completeness of information transmitted, familiarity with the technology, and technical problems. Healthcare professionals were generally satisfied with teledermatology but found telemedicine consultations longer than face-to-face consultations, and less confident in asynchronous teledermatology than conventional consultations. Teledermatology was reportedly more cost-effective than clinic dermatology; especially considering the distance traveled by patients, referral volume to teledermatology, and clinic dermatology costs. Although patients and providers are satisfied with teledermatology, face-to-face dermatology has higher diagnostic and management accuracy. Teledermatology was also used for training medical professionals. Regarding the validity and reliability of teledermatology outcome measures, no significant discussions were found.ConclusionsCOVID-19 spotlighted telemedicine in clinical care, and we must ensure telemedicine continually improves with robust research. Further research is necessary for establishing a standardized outcome set, enhancing accuracy, concordance, cost-effectiveness, and safety, comparing teledermatology with non-dermatologist care, examining its effectiveness in non-Western low and middle-income countries, and incorporating patient involvement for improved study design.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.researchregistry.com/ (Unique Identifying Number: reviewregistry878).