Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38111030›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2023

Living evidence and adaptive policy: perfect partners?

Tari Turner, John N Lavis, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Sally Green, Julian Elliott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. AI-Augmented Clearinghouse to Facilitate Evidence-Based Decision-Making and Social Spending: a Conceptual Framework.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Implications of living evidence syntheses in health policy.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. 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.

Tari TurnerSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. tari.turner@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7990-1623
John N LavisMcMaster Health Forum, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L6, Canada.
Jeremy M GrimshawOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Sally GreenSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Julian ElliottSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile there has been widespread global acceptance of the importance of evidence-informed policy, many opportunities to inform health policy with research are missed, often because of a mismatch between when and where reliable evidence is needed, and when and where it is available. 'Living evidence' is an approach where systematic evidence syntheses (e.g. living reviews, living guidelines, living policy briefs, etc.) are continually updated to incorporate new relevant evidence as it becomes available. Living evidence approaches have the potential to overcome a major barrier to evidence-informed policy, making up-to-date systematic summaries of policy-relevant research available at any time that policy-makers need them. These approaches are likely to be particularly beneficial given increasing calls for policy that is responsive, and rapidly adaptive to changes in the policy context. We describe the opportunities presented by living evidence for evidence-informed policy-making and highlight areas for further exploration. DISCUSSION: There are several elements of living approaches to evidence synthesis that might support increased and improved use of evidence to inform policy. Reviews are explicitly prioritised to be 'living' by partnerships between policy-makers and researchers based on relevance to decision-making, as well as uncertainty of existing evidence, and likelihood that new evidence will arise. The ongoing nature of the work means evidence synthesis teams can be dynamic and engage with policy-makers in a variety of ways over time; and synthesis topics, questions and methods can be adapted as policy interests or contextual factors shift. Policy-makers can sign-up to be notified when relevant new evidence is found, and can be confident that living syntheses are up-to-date and contain all research whenever they access them. The always up-to-date nature of living evidence syntheses means producers can rapidly demonstrate availability of relevant, reliable evidence when it is needed, addressing a frequently cited barrier to evidence-informed policymaking.

conclusionsWhile there are challenges to be overcome, living evidence provides opportunities to enable policy-makers to access up-to-date evidence whenever they need it and also enable researchers to respond to the issues of the day with up-to-date research; and update policy-makers on changes in the evidence base as they arise. It also provides an opportunity to build flexible partnerships between researchers and policy-makers to ensure that evidence syntheses reflect the changing needs of policy-makers.

Indexed as

Health PolicyPolicy MakingHumansResearch DesignResearch PersonnelUncertaintyEvidenceEvidence-basedEvidence-informedKnowledge translationLivingPolicyResearchUp-to-date

Identifiers

PMID38111030
PMCPMC10726516

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.