ArticleBMJ open2025
Developing an evidence brief for policy on implementing deprescribing practices across different levels of healthcare: a protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify and contextualise evidence-based strategies for implementing deprescribing practices at different levels of healthcare in Brazil, through the development of an evidence brief for policy that includes stakeholder deliberation and considers barriers, facilitators and equity aspects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol outlines the development of an evidence brief for policy using a mixed-methods design. It involves synthesising evidence for health policies by integrating global research and local evidence through three stages: stakeholder exchange, evidence brief development and external endorsement. The Supporting Policy-Relevant Reviews and Trials tools for evidence-informed health policies will guide both the synthesis of strategies and the facilitation of deliberative dialogues. The synthesis will encompass evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analysis on deprescribing strategies across healthcare levels, focusing on effectiveness, harms, costs, perceptions, barriers, facilitators and equity. Studies proposing strategies not yet implemented will be excluded. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted independently and in duplicate. The methodological quality of included studies will be assessed using the A Measurement Tool for Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 criteria. Synthesised evidence will be used to develop evidence-based strategies, which will then be presented in deliberative dialogues for endorsement by stakeholders and adaptation to the Brazilian context. Endorsement rates will be classified as high, moderate or low based on predefined criteria. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the University of Sorocaba Research Ethics Committee (certificate 82098324.7.0000.5500). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024548845.
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.