Best evidence toolkits: a case study on interventions for preventing violence against women and girls (VAWG).

Michelle Richardson, Theo Lorenc, Katy Sutcliffe, Amanda Sowden, James Thomas

Abstract readLetter

In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Michelle RichardsonEPPI Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK. m.richardson@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1657-1209

Theo LorencCentre for Reviews & Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.

Katy SutcliffeEPPI Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK.

Amanda SowdenCentre for Reviews & Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.

James ThomasEPPI Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

National institute for Health reseach This review was commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme (PRP) for the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). It was funded through the NIHR PRP contract with the EPPI Centre at UCL (Reviews facility to support national policy development and implementation, NIHR200701).

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research teams report challenges in conducting overviews and many of these relate to the synthesis of outcome data from multiple reviews that lead to unclear evidence. This limits research from being used by policymakers and other review users who need accessible robust evidence. In this commentary, we present a case study on creating a toolkit of interventions for preventing violence against women and girls (VAWG). This toolkit is underpinned by systematic methods and a priori criteria that identify a single best up-to-date systematic review of each subtopic. The best evidence toolkit approach does not require the synthesis of multiple reviews and produces clear, standardised evidence across subtopics efficiently. This approach offers a pragmatic alternative to overviews when presenting a broad spectrum of intervention approaches, populations or outcomes. This approach may be particularly beneficial when the primary aim is to communicate with policymakers.

Indexed as

Gender-Based ViolenceFemaleHumansBest evidenceKnowledge translationOverviewsToolkits

Identifiers

PMID40380212

DOI10.1186/s13643-025-02798-z

PMCPMC12082913

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.