Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39539094›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2024

Outcomes of guidelines from health technology assessment organizations in community-based primary care: a systematic mixed studies review.

Ashkan Baradaran, Raymond Tolentino, Roland Grad, Isabelle Ganache, Geneviève Gore, Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi, Pierre Pluye

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
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

7 authors.

Ashkan BaradaranDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7982-8032
Raymond TolentinoDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7758-314X
Roland GradDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1591-613X
Isabelle GanacheInstitut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS), Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2030-5111
Geneviève GoreSchulich Library of Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, and Engineering, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1072-2683
Samira Abbasgholizadeh RahimiDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3781-1360
Pierre PluyeDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9274-7720

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth technology assessment (HTA) organizations generate guidelines to inform healthcare practices toward improved health outcomes. This review sought to identify and classify outcomes of guidelines from HTA organizations within published research. METHODOLOGY: We performed a systematic mixed studies review of empirical studies that (a) referred to a published guideline from an HTA organization and (b) reported an outcome resulting from a guideline. We searched the published literature in English or French within seven databases. Outcome types were classified within five dimensions of an existing framework for online health information (e.g., relevance, cognitive/affective impact, and use). Subdimensions were inductively developed. A two-phase sequential data synthesis was performed. Phase 1: a hybrid deductive-inductive thematic analysis identified the types of outcomes and displayed their relationships on a concept map. Phase 2: descriptive statistics were tabulated by the type of outcome.

resultsA total of 6,719 records were retrieved through searches on 6 February 2023. After screening, we included 120 observational studies (twenty-one qualitative, ninety-four quantitative, and five mixed methods). Phase 1 identified twenty-nine types of outcomes. The most frequently reported outcomes were within the organizational dimension (reported in ninety-four studies). The most common subdimensions were "Referrals" (thirty-eight occurrences), the "Quality of Prescriptions" (fifteen occurrences), and the "Quality of Diagnosis" (eight occurrences). For Phase 2, we could only generate descriptive statistics on seventeen outcomes. These were almost equally distributed among positive, neutral, and negative effects. Our results contribute to knowledge about the outcomes of HTA guidelines and options for documenting and measuring them in future evaluations.

Indexed as

Guidelines as TopicPrimary Health CareTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalCommunity Health ServicesHumanscommunity-based primary careguidelineshealth outcomeshealth technology assessmentsystematic mixed studies review

Identifiers

PMID39539094
PMCPMC11579698

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.