https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/bireme/viz/meditacao-mindfulness-en/evidence-map

This Evidence Map updates and integrates two prior maps on the application of Meditation and Mindfulness for various clinical and health conditions in the population: 1. Meditation and Mindfulness, produced by the São Paulo Health Institute, Fiocruz Brasília, and Instituto Veredas in 2021. 2. Clinical Effectiveness of Meditation, produced by the Brazilian Academic Consortium for Integrative Health (CABSIN) in 2020. The new map provides an overview of evidence from 211 review studies (88 systematic reviews, 72 systematic reviews with meta-analysis, and 51 meta-analyses) on the clinical and health effects of Meditation and Mindfulness interventions applied to the general population. The studies were categorized into 16 types of meditation and mindfulness interventions, grouped into two categories (Open monitoring practices and other practices), and by 94 health outcomes, distributed into 10 groups: Pain; Well-being and Quality of Life; Metabolic and Physiological Phenomena; Pathological Conditions; Mental Disorders; Psychological Phenomena; Behavior; Social, Environmental, and Spirituality; Health Care; and Biological Markers. In the map, 522 associations are represented and visualized as bubbles that link each of the 16 intervention types to one or more of the 94 health outcomes. Each association also indicates the effect, which may be positive or potentially positive, negative or potentially negative, inconclusive, or no effect. Key Findings The most reported type of intervention was Mindfulness-Based Interventions (MBIs), with 217 associations (41%) across 69 outcomes. The most common outcomes were depression, anxiety disorders, and psychological stress (with 33, 29, and 20 associations, respectively). Most of the systematic reviews showed favorable results (positive or potentially positive) for the practice of different types of meditation and mindfulness applied to: Mental and behavioral disorders (195 and 33 associations respectively, 43%); and Well-being, vitality, and quality of life (98 associations, 22%). The primary studies included in the reviews were mostly conducted in: United States (76 studies); Canada (36); Australia (34); United Kingdom (33); China (29); Netherlands (21); Iran and Germany (19 each); India (17); Spain (16); and Sweden (15). In total, the included reviews specified primary studies from 43 countries. Implications for Practice and Research The evidence and results presented in the reviews included should be interpreted with caution, as confidence in the results of most reviews was rated as low or critically low in terms of methodological quality. For all interventions and outcomes, further high-quality research and standardized assessments are recommended.