  We present a framework consisting of three approaches that can enhance
meta-analyses: 1) scoping reviews (evidence map), 2) bibliometrics, and 3)
alternative impact metrics. These three "enrichment" approaches facilitate the
research synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative evidence, along with
academic and non-academic influences. While the meta-analysis yields
quantitative insights (e.g., overall estimates), the enrichment analyses
provide user-friendly summaries of qualitative information on the evidence
base. Scoping reviews can visualize study characteristics, unravelling
knowledge gaps and methodological differences. Bibliometric analysis offers a
visual assessment of the non-independent evidence, such as hyper-dominant
authors and countries, and funding sources, potentially informing the risk of
bias. Impact metric analysis employs alternative metrics to gauge societal
influence and research translation (e.g., policy and patent citations) of
studies in the meta-analysis. To illustrate the application of this framework,
we provide sample visualizations and R code.
