ArticleClinical and public health guidelines2026
Effectiveness of Knowledge Translation Strategies for Guideline Implementation: Protocol for an Update of an Overview of Systematic Reviews.
Article in Clinical and public health guidelines, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Healthcare guidelines are necessary to optimise patient care and improve health outcomes; however, guidelines alone are insufficient to ensure changes in practice. This overview of reviews aims to identify, map and report on the effectiveness of knowledge translation (KT) strategies to implement guideline recommendations. Methods: We will conduct this study in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook guidance on overviews of reviews. We will search MEDLINE, CRD, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Health Systems Evidence, Epistemonikos, CINAHL and Embase. Eligible studies will include systematic reviews evaluating KT interventions for guideline implementation, regardless of the healthcare condition or system level. Teams of reviewers will independently screen and extract data on systematic review characteristics, interventions, outcomes (process-, healthcare professional-, patient- and economic-related and other), contextual factors and review limitations. The same reviewers will assess risk of bias among included reviews using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). We will synthesise the evidence by classifying intervention effectiveness into the following categories: (1) desirable effect, (2) little or no effect, (3) undesirable effect and (4) uncertain effect, along with the certainty of evidence, if reported. We will present our findings through a narrative synthesis, tabular formats, and an evidence gap map to visualise the evidence landscape. Discussion: This overview of reviews will provide a summary of KT strategies and their effectiveness for improving guideline implementation. These findings will offer actionable guidance for key interest-holders: investigators can utilise the evidence gap map to identify research priorities; guideline developers can identify effective strategies for increasing uptake of recommendations; and funders can optimise resource allocation by directing support towards evidence-based dissemination strategies.
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.