Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28290273›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology and psychiatric sciences2017

From the EBM pyramid to the Greek temple: a new conceptual approach to Guidelines as implementation tools in mental health.

L Salvador-Carulla, S Lukersmith, W Sullivan

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Proof of concept studies in mental health systems research: strategy and steps.International journal of mental health systems · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2018
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2018
    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

3 authors.

L Salvador-CarullaMental Health Policy Unit,Brain and Mind Centre,Faculty of Health Sciences,University of Sydney,Sydney,Australia.
S LukersmithMental Health Policy Unit,Brain and Mind Centre,Faculty of Health Sciences,University of Sydney,Sydney,Australia.
W SullivanDepartment of Family & Community Medicine,Medical Services,Surrey Place Centre,St. Michael's Hospital,Toronto,Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Guideline methods to develop recommendations dedicate most effort around organising discovery and corroboration knowledge following the evidence-based medicine (EBM) framework. Guidelines typically use a single dimension of information, and generally discard contextual evidence and formal expert knowledge and consumer's experiences in the process. In recognition of the limitations of guidelines in complex cases, complex interventions and systems research, there has been significant effort to develop new tools, guides, resources and structures to use alongside EBM methods of guideline development. In addition to these advances, a new framework based on the philosophy of science is required. Guidelines should be defined as implementation decision support tools for improving the decision-making process in real-world practice and not only as a procedure to optimise the knowledge base of scientific discovery and corroboration. A shift from the model of the EBM pyramid of corroboration of evidence to the use of broader multi-domain perspective graphically depicted as 'Greek temple' could be considered. This model takes into account the different stages of scientific knowledge (discovery, corroboration and implementation), the sources of knowledge relevant to guideline development (experimental, observational, contextual, expert-based and experiential); their underlying inference mechanisms (deduction, induction, abduction, means-end inferences) and a more precise definition of evidence and related terms. The applicability of this broader approach is presented for the development of the Canadian Consensus Guidelines for the Primary Care of People with Developmental Disabilities.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineGuidelines as TopicMental HealthPrimary Health CareHealth Plan ImplementationHumansIntellectual DisabilityQuality Assurance, Health Careclinical guidelinescomplexityEvidence-based psychiatryframing of scientific knowledgeimplementationintellectual developmental disordersquality assessment

Identifiers

PMID28290273
PMCPMC6998697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.