Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24958212›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2014

Addressing the evidence to practice gap for complex interventions in primary care: a systematic review of reviews protocol.

Rosa Lau, Fiona Stevenson, Bie Nio Ong, Krysia Dziedzic, Sandra Eldridge, Hazel Everitt, Anne Kennedy, Evangelos Kontopantelis, Paul Little, Nadeem Qureshi and 4 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Use of the electronic Frailty Index to identify vulnerable patients: a pilot study in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Rosa LauE-Health Unit, Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Fiona StevensonE-Health Unit, Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Bie Nio OngArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Krysia DziedzicArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Sandra EldridgeCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Hazel EverittPrimary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Anne KennedyFaculty of Health Sciences, NIHR CLAHRC Wessex, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Evangelos KontopantelisCentre for Health Informatics, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Paul LittlePrimary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Nadeem QureshiDivision of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK.
Anne RogersFaculty of Health Sciences, NIHR CLAHRC Wessex, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Shaun TreweekHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Richard PeacockArchway Healthcare Library, London, UK.
Elizabeth MurrayE-Health Unit, Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10386Medical Research Council MC_PC_13042Medical Research Council MR/K006665/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionGetting the results of research implemented into routine healthcare is often a challenge. The disconnect between the development and implementation of evidence into practice is called the 'second translational gap' and is particularly apparent in primary care. To address this gap, we plan to identify, summarise and synthesise currently available evidence by undertaking a systematic review of reviews to: (1) explore barriers and facilitators of implementation of research evidence or complex interventions, and (2) assess the effectiveness of strategies in facilitating implementation of complex interventions in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for a systematic review of reviews. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsycINFO up until December 2013. We will check reference lists of included studies for further studies. Two authors will independently screen the titles and abstracts identified from the search; any discrepancies will be resolved by discussion and consensus. Full-text papers will be obtained and relevant reviews will be selected against inclusion criteria. Eligible reviews have to be based on predominantly primary care in developed countries and examine either factors to implementation or, the effectiveness of strategies to optimise implementation. Data from eligible reviews will be extracted using standardised data abstraction forms. For barriers and facilitators, data will be synthesised using an interpretative meta-synthesis approach. For implementation strategies, findings will be summarised and described narratively and synthesised using a framework approach. All findings will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. The review findings will inform the work of the design and implementation of future studies and will be of interest to a wide audience including health professionals, researchers, health service or commissioning managers and policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Protocol registration number (PROSPERO CRD42014009410).

Indexed as

Primary Health CareReview Literature as TopicTranslational Research, BiomedicalHumansResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicPrimary CarePublic Health

Identifiers

PMID24958212
PMCPMC4067819

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.