Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35722864›Full record

ReviewResearch synthesis methods2023

A framework for synthesizing intervention evidence from multiple sources into a single certainty of evidence rating: Methodological developments from a US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Committee.

Ned Calonge, Paul G Shekelle, Douglas K Owens, Steven Teutsch, Autumn Downey, Lisa Brown, Jane Noyes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Research synthesis methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. 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

7 authors.

Ned CalongeDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2653-6001
Paul G ShekelleGeneral Internal Medicine Division, Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Douglas K OwensDepartment of Health Policy, School of Medicine, Freeman-Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Steven TeutschDepartment of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles; and Senior Fellow, Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health, Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, California, Los Angeles, USA.
Autumn DowneyNational Academies for Science, Engineering and Medicine, Washington, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Lisa BrownNational Academies for Science, Engineering and Medicine, Washington, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Jane NoyesDepartment of Health and Social Care Services Research and Child Health, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4238-5984

Funding

US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite research investment and a growing body of diverse evidence there has been no comprehensive review and grading of evidence for public health emergency preparedness and response practices comparable to those in medicine and other public health fields. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened an ad hoc committee to develop and use methods for grading and synthesizing diverse types of evidence to create a single certainty of intervention-related evidence to support recommendations for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Research. A 13-step consensus building method was used. Experts were first canvassed in public meetings, and a comprehensive review of existing methods was undertaken. Although aspects of existing review methodologies and evidence grading systems were relevant, none adequately covered all requirements for this specific context. Starting with a desire to synthesize diverse sources of evidence not usually included in systematic reviews and using GRADE for assessing certainty and confidence in quantitative and qualitative evidence as the foundation, we developed a mixed-methods synthesis review and grading methodology that drew on (and in some cases adapted) those elements of existing frameworks and methods that were most applicable. Four topics were selected as test cases. The process was operationalized with a suite of method-specific reviews of diverse evidence types for each topic. Further consensus building was undertaken through stakeholder engagement and feedback The NASEM committee's GRADE adaption for mixed-methods reviews will further evolve over time and has yet to be endorsed by the GRADE working group.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicinePublic HealthSystematic Reviews as Topicevidence synthesisGRADEGRADE CERQυalmixed-methodssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35722864
PMCPMC10084284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.