Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39668237›Full record

ArticleNature protocols2025

Independent SAGE as an example of effective public dialogue on scientific research.

Trisha Greenhalgh, Anthony Costello, Sheena Cruickshank, Stephen Griffin, Aris Katzourakis, Lennard Lee, Martin McKee, Susan Michie, Christina Pagel, Stephen Reicher and 5 more

Abstract readHistorical Article
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature protocols, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. The attributes of public health leadership.European journal of public health · 2025
    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

15 authors.

Trisha GreenhalghNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. trish.greenhalgh@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2369-8088
Anthony CostelloInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0460-4245
Sheena CruickshankLydia Becker Institute of Immunology and Inflammation, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3047-5475
Stephen GriffinLeeds Institute of Medical Research, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7233-5243
Aris KatzourakisDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3328-6204
Lennard LeeCentre for Immuno-oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8993-8438
Martin McKeeLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0121-9683
Susan MichieCentre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0063-6378
Christina PagelClinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2857-1628
Stephen ReicherSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3449-0082
Alice RobertsSchool of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Duncan RobertsonManagement Science and Operations Group, Loughborough Business School, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7801-5451
Helen SalisburyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2347-9096
Kit YatesDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0461-7297
Independent SAGE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 to be a public health emergency of international concern on 30 January 2020 and then a pandemic on 11 March 2020. In early 2020, a group of UK scientists volunteered to provide the public with up-to-date and transparent scientific information. The group formed the Independent Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Independent SAGE) and provided live weekly briefings to the public via YouTube. In this Perspective, we describe how and why this group came together and the challenges it faced. We reflect on 4 years of scientific information broadcasting and discuss the guiding principles followed by Independent SAGE, which may be broadly transferable for strengthening the scientist-public dialogue during public health emergencies in future settings. We discuss the provision of clarity and transparency, engagement with the science-policy interface, the practice of interdisciplinarity, the centrality of addressing inequity, the need for dialogue and partnership with the public, the importance of support for advocacy groups, the diversification of communication channels and modalities, the adoption of regular and organized internal communications, the resourcing and support of the group's communications and the active opposition of misinformation and disinformation campaigns. We reflect on what we might do differently next time and propose research aimed at building the evidence base for optimizing informal scientific advisory groups in crisis situations.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesCOVID-19Health PolicyInformation DisseminationBiomedical ResearchHumansUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.