ArticleHealth research policy and systems2009
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 8: Deciding how much confidence to place in a systematic review.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Putting research in place: an innovative approach to providing contextualized evidence synthesis for decision makers.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Decision-makers' experiences with rapid evidence summaries to support real-time evidence informed decision-making in crises: a mixed methods study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Interventions promoting uptake of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) technologies in low- and middle-income countries: An evidence and gap map of effectiveness studies.Campbell systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Economic Aspects of Delivering Primary Care Services: An Evidence Synthesis to Inform Policy and Research Priorities.The Milbank quarterly · 2021Article
- Protocol: mixed-methods study of how implementation of US state medical cannabis laws affects treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and adverse opioid outcomes.Implementation science : IS · 2021Article
- Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map.Campbell systematic reviews · 2020Article
- Article
- PROTOCOL: Evidence and Gap Map Protocol: Interventions promoting safe water, sanitation, and hygiene for households, communities, schools, and health facilities in low- and middle-income countries.Campbell systematic reviews · 2018Article
- An interpretive review of consensus statements on clinical guideline development and their application in the field of traditional and complementary medicine.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2017Review
- Review
- Using conjoint analysis to develop a system to score research engagement actions by health decision makers.Health research policy and systems · 2015Article
- Evaluation of an integrated system for classification, assessment and comparison of services for long-term care in Europe: the eDESDE-LTC study.BMC health services research · 2013Article
- Implementation research evidence uptake and use for policy-making.Health research policy and systems · 2012Review
- Knowledge translation of research findings.Implementation science : IS · 2012Article
- Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: assessing how much confidence to place in the research evidence.PLoS medicine · 2012Article
- SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 5: Using research evidence to frame options to address a problem.Health research policy and systems · 2009Article
- SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 17: Dealing with insufficient research evidence.Health research policy and systems · 2009Article
- SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: Preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking.Health research policy and systems · 2009Article
- SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP).Health research policy and systems · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. The reliability of systematic reviews of the effects of health interventions is variable. Consequently, policymakers and others need to assess how much confidence can be placed in such evidence. The use of systematic and transparent processes to determine such decisions can help to prevent the introduction of errors and bias in these judgements. In this article, we suggest five questions that can be considered when deciding how much confidence to place in the findings of a systematic review of the effects of an intervention. These are: 1. Did the review explicitly address an appropriate policy or management question? 2. Were appropriate criteria used when considering studies for the review? 3. Was the search for relevant studies detailed and reasonably comprehensive? 4. Were assessments of the studies' relevance to the review topic and of their risk of bias reproducible? 5. Were the results similar from study to study?
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.