ArticleSystematic reviews2012
A framework for production of systematic review based briefings to support evidence-informed decision-making.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pragmatic methods for reviewing exceptionally large bodies of evidence: systematic mapping review and overview of systematic reviews using lung cancer survival as an exemplar.Systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Conducting evidence synthesis and developing evidence-based advice in public health and beyond: A scoping review and map of methods guidance.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- How to present economic evaluations to non-technical audiences? Randomized trials with professionals and the general population.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024Article
- Rapid evidence synthesis to enable innovation and adoption in health and social care.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Does access to a demand-led evidence briefing service improve uptake and use of research evidence by health service commissioners? A controlled before and after study.Implementation science : IS · 2017Article
- Consideration of health inequalities in systematic reviews: a mapping review of guidance.Systematic reviews · 2016Review
- The use of rapid review methods in health technology assessments: 3 case studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2016Article
- Taking knowledge users' knowledge needs into account in health: an evidence synthesis framework.Health policy and planning · 2016Review
- Effects of a demand-led evidence briefing service on the uptake and use of research evidence by commissioners of health services: protocol for a controlled before and after study.Implementation science : IS · 2015Article
- Review
- Decision-to-Implement Worksheet for Evidence-based Interventions: From the WWAMI Region Practice and Research Network.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe have developed a framework for translating existing sources of synthesized and quality-assessed evidence, primarily systematic reviews, into actionable messages in the form of short accessible briefings. The service aims to address real-life problems in response to requests from decision-makers.Development of the framework was based on a scoping review of existing resources and our initial experience with two briefing topics, including models of service provision for young people with eating disorders. We also drew on previous experience in dissemination research and practice. Where appropriate, we made use of the SUPporting POlicy relevant Reviews and Trials (SUPPORT) tools for evidence-informed policymaking.
findingsTo produce a product that it is fit for this purpose it has been necessary to go beyond a traditional summary of the available evidence relating to effectiveness. Briefings have, therefore, included consideration of cost effectiveness, local applicability, implications relating to local service delivery, budgets, implementation and equity. Our first evidence briefings produced under this framework cover diagnostic endoscopy by specialist nurses and integrated care pathways in mental healthcare settings.
conclusionsThe framework will enable researchers to present and contextualize evidence from systematic reviews and other sources of synthesized and quality-assessed evidence. The approach is designed to address the wide range of questions of interest to decision-makers, especially those commissioning services or managing service delivery and organization in primary or secondary care. Evaluation of the use and usefulness of the evidence briefings we produce is an integral part of the framework and will help to fill a gap in the literature.
Indexed as
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.