Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35870939›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2022

Development of a STandard reporting guideline for Evidence briefs for Policy (STEP): context and study protocol.

Xuan Yu, Qi Wang, Kaelan Moat, Cristián Mansilla, Claudia Marcela Vélez, Daniel F Patiño-Lugo, Yosef G Abraha, Fadi El-Jardali, Racha Fadlallah, Jinglin He and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

15 authors.

Xuan YuEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Qi WangHealth Policy PhD Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Kaelan MoatMcMaster Health Forum, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Cristián MansillaHealth Policy PhD Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Claudia Marcela VélezUniversity of Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.
Daniel F Patiño-LugoFaculty of Medicine, University of Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.
Yosef G AbrahaEthiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Fadi El-JardaliAmerican University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Racha FadlallahAmerican University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Jinglin HeLanzhou University Institute of Health Data Science, Lanzhou, China.
Mohammad KibriaPublic Health Advisor, Health Intelligence and Research Department, Canadian Red Cross, Ottawa, Canada.
Laura BoeiraInstituto Veredas, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Myeong Soo LeeKorea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon, Korea.
John N LavisMcMaster Health Forum, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Yaolong ChenLanzhou University Institute of Health Data Science, Lanzhou, China. chevidence@lzu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9841-5233

Funding

National Social Science Foundation of China 19ZDA142
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence briefs for policy (EBP) draw on best-available data and research evidence (e.g., systematic reviews) to help clarify policy problems, frame options for addressing them, and identify implementation considerations for policymakers in a given context. An increasing number of governments, non-governmental organizations and research groups have been developing EBP on a wide variety of topics. However, the reporting characteristics of EBP vary across organizations due to a lack of internationally accepted standard reporting guidelines. This project aims to develop a STandard reporting guideline of Evidence briefs for Policy (STEP), which will encompass a reporting checklist and a STEP statement and a user manual.

methodsWe will refer to and adapt the methods recommended by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network. The key actions include: (1) developing a protocol; (2) establishing an international multidisciplinary STEP working group (consisting of a Coordination Team and a Delphi Panel); (3) generating an initial draft of the potential items for the STEP reporting checklist through a comprehensive review of EBP-related literature and documents; (4) conducting a modified Delphi process to select and refine the reporting checklist; (5) using the STEP to evaluate published policy briefs in different countries; (6) finalizing the checklist; (7) developing the STEP statement and the user manual (8) translating the STEP into different languages; and (9) testing the reliability through real world use. DISCUSSION: Our protocol describes the development process for STEP. It will directly address what and how information should be reported in EBP and contribute to improving their quality. The decision-makers, researchers, journal editors, evaluators, and other stakeholders who support evidence-informed policymaking through the use of mechanisms like EBP will benefit from the STEP. Registration We registered the protocol on the EQUATOR network. ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#84 ).

Indexed as

ChecklistResearch ReportGuidelines as TopicHumansPolicyReproducibility of ResultsReview Literature as TopicEvidence briefs for policyHealth and non-health sectorsReporting guidelineSTEP statementStudy protocol

Identifiers

PMID35870939
PMCPMC9308122

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.