Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33535975›Full record

ReviewBMC public health2021

A review of the quantitative effectiveness evidence synthesis methods used in public health intervention guidelines.

Ellesha A Smith, Nicola J Cooper, Alex J Sutton, Keith R Abrams, Stephanie J Hubbard

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ellesha A SmithDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Lancaster Road, Leicester, UK. eas24@le.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4241-7205
Nicola J CooperDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Lancaster Road, Leicester, UK.
Alex J SuttonDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Lancaster Road, Leicester, UK.
Keith R AbramsDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Lancaster Road, Leicester, UK.
Stephanie J HubbardDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Lancaster Road, Leicester, UK.
University of Leicester · GB

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2018-11-ST2-033National Institute for Health Research DRF-2018-11-ST2-033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe complexity of public health interventions create challenges in evaluating their effectiveness. There have been huge advancements in quantitative evidence synthesis methods development (including meta-analysis) for dealing with heterogeneity of intervention effects, inappropriate 'lumping' of interventions, adjusting for different populations and outcomes and the inclusion of various study types. Growing awareness of the importance of using all available evidence has led to the publication of guidance documents for implementing methods to improve decision making by answering policy relevant questions.

methodsThe first part of this paper reviews the methods used to synthesise quantitative effectiveness evidence in public health guidelines by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) that had been published or updated since the previous review in 2012 until the 19th August 2019.The second part of this paper provides an update of the statistical methods and explains how they address issues related to evaluating effectiveness evidence of public health interventions.

resultsThe proportion of NICE public health guidelines that used a meta-analysis as part of the synthesis of effectiveness evidence has increased since the previous review in 2012 from 23% (9 out of 39) to 31% (14 out of 45). The proportion of NICE guidelines that synthesised the evidence using only a narrative review decreased from 74% (29 out of 39) to 60% (27 out of 45).An application in the prevention of accidents in children at home illustrated how the choice of synthesis methods can enable more informed decision making by defining and estimating the effectiveness of more distinct interventions, including combinations of intervention components, and identifying subgroups in which interventions are most effective.

conclusionsDespite methodology development and the publication of guidance documents to address issues in public health intervention evaluation since the original review, NICE public health guidelines are not making full use of meta-analysis and other tools that would provide decision makers with fuller information with which to develop policy. There is an evident need to facilitate the translation of the synthesis methods into a public health context and encourage the use of methods to improve decision making.

Indexed as

Public HealthChildHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicComplex interventionsDecision makingEvidence synthesisMeta-analysisNetwork meta-analysisPublic healthSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33535975
PMCPMC7860217
OpenAlexW3129094480

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.