ArticleImplementation science : IS2013
Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02414360 (Using a Systematic Review in Clinical Decision Making), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
Using a Systematic Review in Clinical Decision Making: a Pilot Parallel, Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using a systematic review in clinical decision making: a pilot parallel, randomized controlled trial.Implementation science : IS · 2015Trial
- Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policy-makers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- Assessing the format and content of journal published and non-journal published rapid review reports: A comparative study.PloS one · 2020Article
- Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: what is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study.Implementation science : IS · 2018Review
- Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2016Article
- Article
- An iterative evaluation of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians: a focus group study.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2014Article
- A prototype for evidence-based pharmaceutical opinions to promote physician-pharmacist communication around deprescribing.Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPCArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews provide evidence for clinical questions, however the literature suggests they are not used regularly by physicians for decision-making. A shortened systematic review format is proposed as one possible solution to address barriers, such as lack of time, experienced by busy clinicians. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development process of two shortened formats for a systematic review intended for use by primary care physicians as an information tool for clinical decision-making.
methodsWe developed prototypes for two formats (case-based and evidence-expertise) that represent a summary of a full-length systematic review before seeking input from end-users. The process was composed of the following four phases: 1) selection of a systematic review and creation of initial prototypes that represent a shortened version of the systematic review; 2) a mapping exercise to identify obstacles described by clinicians in using clinical evidence in decision-making; 3) a heuristic evaluation (a usability inspection method); and 4) a review of the clinical content in the prototypes.
resultsAfter the initial prototypes were created (Phase 1), the mapping exercise (Phase 2) identified components that prompted modifications. Similarly, the heuristic evaluation and the clinical content review (Phase 3 and Phase 4) uncovered necessary changes. Revisions were made to the prototypes based on the results.
conclusionsDocumentation of the processes for developing products or tools provides essential information about how they are tailored for the intended user. One step has been described that we hope will increase usability and uptake of these documents to end-users.
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.