Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28129795›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2017

Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals? A before and after study.

Gabriel Moore, Sally Redman, Catherine D'Este, Steve Makkar, Tari Turner

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Co-production of knowledge: the future.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Gabriel MooreSchool of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building (A27), Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. gabriel.moore@saxinstitute.org.au.ORCID 0000-0002-2273-0296
Sally RedmanThe Sax Institute, Level 13, Building 10, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Catherine D'EsteNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health (NCEPH), Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, 62 Mills Road, Acton, ACT, 0200, Australia.
Steve MakkarThe Sax Institute, Level 13, Building 10, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Tari TurnerSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 1, 549 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRapid reviews are increasingly being used to help policy makers access research in short time frames. A clear articulation of the review's purpose, questions, scope, methods and reporting format is thought to improve the quality and generalisability of review findings. The aim of the study is to explore the effectiveness of knowledge brokering in improving the perceived clarity of rapid review proposals from the perspective of potential reviewers. To conduct the study, we drew on the Evidence Check program, where policy makers draft a review proposal (a pre knowledge brokering proposal) and have a 1-hour session with a knowledge broker, who re-drafts the proposal based on the discussion (a post knowledge brokering proposal).

methodsWe asked 30 reviewers who had previously undertaken Evidence Check reviews to examine the quality of 60 pre and 60 post knowledge brokering proposals. Reviewers were blind to whether the review proposals they received were pre or post knowledge brokering. Using a six-point Likert scale, reviewers scored six questions examining clarity of information about the review's purpose, questions, scope, method and format and reviewers' confidence that they could meet policy makers' needs. Each reviewer was allocated two pre and two post knowledge brokering proposals, randomly ordered, from the 60 reviews, ensuring no reviewer received a pre and post knowledge brokering proposal from the same review.

resultsThe results showed that knowledge brokering significantly improved the scores for all six questions addressing the perceived clarity of the review proposal and confidence in meeting policy makers' needs; with average changes of 0.68 to 1.23 from pre to post across the six domains.

conclusionsThis study found that knowledge brokering increased the perceived clarity of information provided in Evidence Check rapid review proposals and the confidence of reviewers that they could meet policy makers' needs. Further research is needed to identify how the knowledge brokering process achieves these improvements and to test the applicability of the findings in other rapid review programs.

Indexed as

Policy MakingReview Literature as TopicControlled Before-After StudiesEvidence-Based MedicineHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansCommissioned rapid reviewsEvidence summariesKnowledge brokeringKnowledge synthesisPolicy-relevantRapid reviewsResearch utilisationReview literature as topic

Identifiers

PMID28129795
PMCPMC5273818

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.