Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38539257›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2024

Co-design workshops to develop evidence synthesis summary formats for use by clinical guideline development groups.

Ruairi Murray, Erindaa Magendran, Neya Chander, Rosarie Lynch, Michelle O'Neill, Declan Devane, Susan M Smith, Kamal Mahtani, Máirín Ryan, Barbara Clyne and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2024. 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
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Ruairi MurrayHealth Information and Quality Authority, Dublin, Ireland.
Erindaa MagendranSchool of Medicine, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, 123 St. Stephens Green, Dublin, Ireland.
Neya ChanderSchool of Medicine, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, 123 St. Stephens Green, Dublin, Ireland.
Rosarie LynchDepartment of Health, National Patient Safety Office, Dublin, Ireland.
Michelle O'NeillHealth Information and Quality Authority, Dublin, Ireland.
Declan DevaneSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Susan M SmithDiscipline of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Kamal MahtaniDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England.
Máirín RyanHealth Information and Quality Authority, Dublin, Ireland.
Barbara ClyneDepartment of Public Health and Epidemiology, School of Population Health, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, 123 St. Stephens Green, Dublin, Ireland.
Melissa K SharpDepartment of Public Health and Epidemiology, School of Population Health, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, 123 St. Stephens Green, Dublin, Ireland. melissasharp@rcsi.ie.ORCID 0000-0001-5261-1573
Health and Safety Authority · IERoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IETrinity College Dublin · IEInstitute of Population and Public Health · CAOllscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway · IEUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Health Research Board EIA-2019-09
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence synthesis is used by decision-makers in various ways, such as developing evidence-based recommendations for clinical guidelines. Clinical guideline development groups (GDGs) typically discuss evidence synthesis findings in a multidisciplinary group, including patients, healthcare providers, policymakers, etc. A recent mixed methods systematic review (MMSR) identified no gold standard format for optimally presenting evidence synthesis findings to these groups. However, it provided 94 recommendations to help produce more effective summary formats for general evidence syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews). To refine the MMSR recommendations to create more actionable guidance for summary producers, we aimed to explore these 94 recommendations with participants involved in evidence synthesis and guideline development.

methodsWe conducted a descriptive qualitative study using online focus group workshops in February and March 2023. These groups used a participatory co-design approach with interactive voting activities to identify preferences for a summary format's essential content and style. We created a topic guide focused on recommendations from the MMSR with mixed methods support, ≥ 3 supporting studies, and those prioritized by an expert advisory group via a pragmatic prioritization exercise using the MoSCoW method (Must, Should, Could, and Will not haves). Eligible participants must be/have been involved in GDGs and/or evidence synthesis. Groups were recorded and transcribed. Two independent researchers analyzed transcripts using directed content analysis with 94 pre-defined codes from the MMSR.

resultsThirty individuals participated in six focus groups. We coded 79 of the 94 pre-defined codes. Participants suggested a "less is more" structured approach that minimizes methodological steps and statistical data, promoting accessibility to all audiences by judicious use of links to further information in the full report. They emphasized concise, consistently presented formats that highlight key messages, flag readers to indicators of trust in the producers (i.e., logos, websites, and conflict of interest statements), and highlight the certainty of evidence (without extenuating details).

conclusionsThis study identified guidance based on the preferences of guideline developers and evidence synthesis producers about the format of evidence synthesis summaries to support decision-making. The next steps involve developing and user-testing prototype formats through one-on-one semi-structured interviews to optimize evidence synthesis summaries and support decision-making.

Indexed as

Focus GroupsPractice Guidelines as TopicDecision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineHumansQualitative ResearchSystematic Reviews as TopicClinical guidelinesEvidence summariesEvidence synthesisFocus groupsQualitative researchSummary formats

Identifiers

PMID38539257
PMCPMC10967093
OpenAlexW4393225242

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.