ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2020
Future of evidence ecosystem series: 3. From an evidence synthesis ecosystem to an evidence ecosystem.
Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluation of 'implications for research' statements in systematic reviews of interventions in advanced cancer patients - a meta-research study.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Pooled it
- Development and Preliminary Validation of the Chinese Medicine Interventional Clinical Trials Research Question Importance Tool (CMICT-RQIT).Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Teaching evidence-based principles in Rheumatology.Rheumatology international · 2026Review
- Article
- Bridging theory and practice: a qualitative interview study of barriers to and facilitators of research collaborations between academia and public health services in Germany.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Mapping health evidence ecosystem in Brazil: a mixed-methods study protocol for developing a framework.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Exploring transparent reporting and data availability in systematic reviews to identify subgroup evidence: imaging for suspected hepatocellular carcinoma in the non-cirrhotic liver.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
- A living critical interpretive synthesis to yield a framework on the production and dissemination of living evidence syntheses for decision-making.Implementation science : IS · 2024Review
- The implementation of embedded researchers in policy, public services, and commercial settings: a systematic evidence and gap map.Implementation science communications · 2024Article
- Designing tailored maintenance strategies for systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines using the Portfolio Maintenance by Test-Treatment (POMBYTT) framework.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Review
- The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative: Statement of Working Principles and Rapid Review of Methods to Define Data Dictionaries for Neurological Conditions.Neurotrauma reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing, and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1.Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine · 2023Article
- Using a Learning Health System to Improve Physical Therapy Care for Patients With Intermittent Claudication: Lessons Learned From the ClaudicatioNet Quality System.Physical therapy · 2022Article
- Establishing a Regulatory Science System for Supervising the Application of Artificial Intelligence for Traditional Chinese Medicine: A Methodological Framework.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Reading, Conducting, and Developing Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-Analyses in Psychiatry for Treatment Issues.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The "one-off" approach of systematic reviews is no longer sustainable; we need to move toward producing "living" evidence syntheses (i.e., comprehensive, based on rigorous methods, and up-to-date). This implies rethinking the evidence synthesis ecosystem, its infrastructure, and management. The three distinct production systems-primary research, evidence synthesis, and guideline development-should work together to allow for continuous refreshing of synthesized evidence and guidelines. A new evidence ecosystem, not just focusing on synthesis, should allow for bridging the gaps between evidence synthesis communities, primary researchers, guideline developers, health technology assessment agencies, and health policy authorities. This network of evidence synthesis stakeholders should select relevant clinical questions considered a priority topic. For each question, a multidisciplinary community including researchers, health professionals, guideline developers, policymakers, patients, and methodologists needs to be established and commit to performing the initial evidence synthesis and keeping it up-to-date. Encouraging communities to work together continuously with bidirectional interactions requires greater incentives, rewards, and the involvement of health care policy authorities to optimize resources. A better evidence ecosystem with collaborations and interactions between each partner of the network of evidence synthesis stakeholders should permit living evidence syntheses to justify their status in evidence-informed decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32147384What 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.