Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36419199›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2022

Rapid evidence synthesis to enable innovation and adoption in health and social care.

Gill Norman, Paul Wilson, Jo Dumville, Peter Bower, Nicky Cullum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  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

5 authors.

Gill NormanDivision of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. gill.norman@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3972-5733
Paul WilsonNIHR ARC GM, Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Jo DumvilleDivision of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Peter BowerNIHR ARC GM, Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Nicky CullumDivision of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rapid identification and adoption of effective innovations in healthcare is a known challenge. The strongest evidence base for innovations can be provided by evidence synthesis, but this is frequently a lengthy process and even rapid versions of this can be time-consuming and complex. In the UK, the Accelerated Access Review and Academic Health Science Network (AHSN) have provided the impetus to develop a consistently rapid process to support the identification and adoption of high-value innovations in the English NHS.

methodsThe Greater Manchester Applied Research Collaboration (ARC-GM) developed a framework for a rapid evidence synthesis (RES) approach, which is highly integrated within the innovation process of the Greater Manchester AHSN and the associated healthcare and research ecosystem. The RES uses evidence synthesis approaches and draws on the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework to provide rapid assessments of the existing evidence and its relevance to specific decision problems. We implemented this in a real-time context of decision-making around adoption of innovative health technologies.

resultsKey stakeholders in the Greater Manchester decision-making process for healthcare innovations have found that our approach is both timely and flexible; it is valued for its combination of rigour and speed. Our RES approach rapidly and systematically identifies, appraises and contextualises relevant evidence, which can then be transparently incorporated into decisions about the wider adoption of innovations. The RES also identifies limitations in existing evidence for innovations and this can inform subsequent evaluations. There is substantial interest from other ARCs and AHSNs in implementing a similar process. We are currently exploring methods to make completed RES publicly available. We are also exploring methods to evaluate the impact of using RES as more implementation decisions are made.

conclusionsThe RES framework we have implemented combines transparency and consistency with flexibility and rapidity. It therefore maximises utility in a real-time decision-making context for healthcare innovations.

Indexed as

EcosystemState MedicineDelivery of Health CareHumansSocial Support

Identifiers

PMID36419199
PMCPMC9682764

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.