ArticlePloS one2024
The evolution and adaptation of evidence synthesis during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: Perspectives of evidence synthesis producers.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Synthesis challenges in complex evidence: A critical analysis of systematic reviews of face mask efficacy.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The demand for evidence syntheses to inform urgent decision-making surged during the pandemic. The challenging circumstances of the pandemic created significant hurdles for both those requesting and creating evidence syntheses, leading to the refinement and adjustment of evidence synthesis practices. This research sought to capture and explore how the field of evidence synthesis evolved and adapted during the pandemic from the perspective of those who produced evidence syntheses in Canada. In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were carried out between October 2022 to January 2023. Twenty-two participants from 19 different organizations across seven provinces and one territory were interviewed. This included producers of evidence syntheses from academic institutions, not-for-profit organizations, and provincial and federal government. Data analysis was conducted thematically using a phenomenological approach. Results indicated the evidence synthesis landscape drastically changed during the pandemic including short timelines to produce syntheses and changes in the volume, types, and quality of literature included in them. Due to the changing landscape and different needs of requestors, evidence synthesis methodologies evolved, synthesis products were tailored, and quality assessment tools were adapted. In addition, the use of artificial intelligence, processes for engaging subject matter experts and patient-citizen partners, and the coordination of the evidence synthesis community changed. The findings of this study contribute to the ongoing dialogue surrounding evidence synthesis to inform decision-making, and highlights the importance of flexibility and necessity of continuously evolving methodologies to meet the demands of frequently changing landscapes. The lessons learned from this study can help inform future strategies for improving evidence synthesis practices not only in the face of public health emergencies, but also in everyday practice.
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.