Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
General information about a free evidence-indexing tool. It is not clinical or individual advice.
Short answer
ASHA Evidence Maps is a free online tool from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association that indexes more than 4,000 summaries of published systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines and ASHA practice policy documents across 60+ audiology and speech-language pathology topics. It points you to already-appraised syntheses; it does not replace reading the source or exercising clinical judgment.
Definition and scope
The tool is organised by clinical topic, disorder or population (for example aphasia, adult dysphagia, adult hearing loss, autism, augmentative and alternative communication, dementia and head and neck cancer). Each topic lists review and guideline titles with a summary page. Per the NSSLHA student guide, it covers screening, assessment, treatment and service delivery in both audiology and speech-language pathology, and is described as supporting, not replacing, evidence-based practice. For the profession it serves, see what speech-language pathology is.
How it is used in practice
Topics are listed alphabetically; users can narrow by Audiology or Speech-Language Pathology, or by age group, and search by keyword. Further filters cover type of evidence, type of article, practice area, service delivery considerations, additional considerations (client characteristics, outcomes) and publication date range. Over-filtering can return zero results, so add filters one at a time. A university library guide (Hofstra) describes the same filters and notes that the evidence filter separates external scientific evidence (systematic reviews, meta-analyses), clinical expertise (practice guidelines) and client perspectives.
A summary page gives the citation and a link to the original, key conclusions or recommendations, article details such as search years and study designs, and a quality appraisal. New summaries are added weekly, drawing on journal alerts, ongoing searches and periodic comprehensive searches.
The three content types and how each is vetted
| Content type | What it is | How it is appraised or included |
|---|---|---|
| Systematic reviews | Syntheses of primary studies, sometimes with meta-analysis | Scored against six quality indicators, such as a focused question, inclusion criteria and a repeatable search strategy |
| Clinical practice guidelines | Evidence-based or consensus-based recommendations | Evaluated using AGREE II principles; only guidelines rated “Highly Recommended” or “Recommended With Provisos” are included |
| ASHA practice policy documents | Consensus-based documents | Approved through ASHA governance |
AGREE II is described by ASHA as a tool that assesses the quality and reporting practice of guidelines. For how to apply it yourself, see appraising a clinical practice guideline with AGREE II.
Where it matters for labs, clinics and research teams
ASHA’s own guidance on bias, appraisal tools and levels of evidence recommends saving time by using resources already reviewed for quality and bias, and names Evidence Maps as an example. For a research team, the map is a secondary index: a fast way to find existing syntheses before deciding whether a new one is needed. It is not itself a systematic review, and it does not follow a PRISMA 2020 reporting pathway. If you are charting a field rather than answering a focused question, compare it with a mapping review, and see GRADE for another certainty-rating approach.
Checklist: what a map entry does and does not tell you
- Inclusion is not verification. Being listed does not guarantee the original authors’ data or conclusions are accurate.
- Quality ratings are flags. They point to possible methodological weaknesses; they are not a verdict on the whole study.
- Summaries are the original authors’ conclusions. ASHA staff add no interpretation of their own.
- Gaps are possible. Niche topics may have no synthesized research to index.
- Access varies. Many linked articles are free on ASHA’s site; others need membership, purchase or a library.
- Evidence types differ. Most articles under a map sit in external scientific evidence, so client-perspective material may be thinner (Hofstra library guide).
Common misunderstandings
“It is a clinical protocol.”
No. It indexes reviews, guidelines and policy documents; it gives no step-by-step procedures and does not tell any individual what to do.
“A listing means ASHA endorses the finding.”
According to the NSSLHA guide, summaries reflect the original authors’ conclusions and ASHA staff add no interpretation; treat a listing as an index entry, not a statement that the finding is correct.
“It replaces a literature search.”
It is limited to the topics and article types the tool covers, so a topic with no map or no listed synthesis still needs a separate search.
FAQ
Is ASHA Evidence Maps free?
Yes, the tool is free to use online; some linked full-text articles may require membership, purchase or library access.
How many topics and articles does it cover?
The NSSLHA guide (read 2026-11-11) reports 4,000+ article summaries across 60+ clinical topics, disorders and populations.
How are guidelines chosen?
They are evaluated with AGREE II principles, and only those rated “Highly Recommended” or “Recommended With Provisos” are included.
Sources
- ASHA Evidence Maps tool, apps.asha.org/EvidenceMaps, read 2026-11-11.
- NSSLHA, “A Student’s Guide to ASHA’s Evidence Maps,” blog.nsslha.org, read 2026-11-11.
- ASHA, “Bias, Appraisal Tools, and Levels of Evidence,” asha.org, read 2026-11-11.
- Hofstra University Libraries, Clinical Methods guide, libguides.hofstra.edu, read 2026-11-11.
