ArticleBMJ open2012
Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers' perceptions.
Article in BMJ open, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 6 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
59 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The impact of Cochrane Reviews that apply network meta-analysis in clinical guidelines: A systematic review.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic mapping of checklists for assessing transferability.Systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The effectiveness of interventions designed to increase the uptake of clinical practice guidelines and best practices among musculoskeletal professionals: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2018Pooled it
- Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of orthodontic mini implants in clinical practice: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Improving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance.BMJ open · 2014Pooled it
- A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence.Health research policy and systems · 2018Trial
- Understanding Remission of Long-Term Conditions Through Electronic Health Records: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Methods of Engaging Interest-Holders in Healthcare Evidence Syntheses: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- The People's Review protocol: planning an innovative study powered by the public.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Development and Implementation of MyPainHub, a Web-Based Resource for People With Musculoskeletal Conditions and Their Health Care Professionals: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- User experiences of structured stakeholder engagement to consider transferability: The TRANSFER approach.Campbell systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening in an academic family practice: Short-term impact of guideline changes.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2022Article
- Bursting out of our bubble: using creative techniques to communicate within the systematic review process and beyond.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo review the barriers to the uptake of research evidence from systematic reviews by decision makers. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched 19 databases covering the full range of publication years, utilised three search engines and also personally contacted investigators. Reference lists of primary studies and related reviews were also consulted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they reported on the views and perceptions of decision makers on the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analyses and the databases associated with them. All study designs, settings and decision makers were included. One investigator screened titles to identify candidate articles then two reviewers independently assessed the quality and the relevance of retrieved reports. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers described the methods of included studies and extracted data that were summarised in tables and then analysed. Using a pre-established taxonomy, the barriers were organised into a framework according to their effect on knowledge, attitudes or behaviour.
resultsOf 1726 articles initially identified, we selected 27 unique published studies describing at least one barrier to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews. These studies included a total of 25 surveys and 2 qualitative studies. Overall, the majority of participants (n=10 218) were physicians (64%). The most commonly investigated barriers were lack of use (14/25), lack of awareness (12/25), lack of access (11/25), lack of familiarity (7/25), lack of usefulness (7/25), lack of motivation (4/25) and external barriers (5/25).
conclusionsThis systematic review reveals that strategies to improve the uptake of evidence from reviews and meta-analyses will need to overcome a wide variety of obstacles. Our review describes the reasons why knowledge users, especially physicians, do not call on systematic reviews. This study can inform future approaches to enhancing systematic review uptake and also suggests potential avenues for future investigation.
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.