ReviewGlobal challenges (Hoboken, NJ)2018
Towards a Systematic Understanding of How to Institutionally Design Scientific Advisory Committees: A Conceptual Framework and Introduction to a Special Journal Issue.
Review in Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conceptualizing National Advisory Boards in primary care research: application to the Two in One HIV and COVID screening and testing model.Primary health care research & development · 2024Article
- Functionality of technical working groups in enabling evidence-informed decision-making within Malawi's Ministry of Health: a cross-sectional qualitative study.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Governing evidence use in the nutrition policy process: evidence and lessons from the 2020 Canada food guide.Nutrition reviews · 2022Article
- Systematic analysis of global health research funding in Canada, 2000-2016.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2020Article
- Building the political case for investing in public health and public health research.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2019Article
- Towards a Systematic Understanding of How to Institutionally Design Scientific Advisory Committees: A Conceptual Framework and Introduction to a Special Journal Issue.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2018Review
- Designing Scientific Advisory Committees for a Complex World.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientifically-derived insights are often held as requirements for defensible policy choices. Scientific advisory committees (SACs) figure prominently in this landscape, often with the promise of bringing scientific evidence to decision-makers. Yet, there is sparse and scattered knowledge about what institutional features influence the operations and effectiveness of SACs, how these design choices influence subsequent decision-making, and the lessons learned from their application. The consequences of these knowledge gaps are that SACs may not be functioning as effectively as possible. The articles in this special journal issue of
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.