ArticleSystematic reviews2023
Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Better Together: Tools to Aid Patient and Public Involvement in Evidence Synthesis and the Need for Consensus on Essential Reporting Items.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- Principles and Strategies for Interest-Holder Engagement in Health Guideline Development.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Methods of Engaging Interest-Holders in Healthcare Evidence Syntheses: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Article
- Introducing a Series of Reviews Assessing Engagement in Evidence Syntheses.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Health Equity in Systematic Reviews: A Tutorial-Part 1 Getting Started With Health Equity in Your Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Knowledge user involvement is still uncommon in published rapid reviews-a meta-research cross-sectional study.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- Pain, Agitation, Delirium, and Iatrogenic Withdrawal Syndrome Management in Children Who Are Critically Ill: Protocol for a European Clinical Practice Guideline Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Patient and public involvement in an evidence synthesis project: description of and reflection on involvement.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews: A method for conducting comprehensive analysis.MethodsX · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
39 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInvolving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses
methodsOur diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3. CONSENSUS: The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4. DISSEMINATION: We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations.
conclusionOur international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.