Increasing the Incidence and Influence of Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Practice

Chalmers, Iain; Fox, Daniel M.

doi:10.2105/ajph.2015.302915

Cited by 33 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cochrane publishes an increasing number of systematic reviews each year and aims to disseminate the latest in best practice care to health practitioners and combat a lack of replicability that occurs with even very large single studies [23,24]. This is part of a trend of increased production of systematic reviews, from about 80 a year in the late 1980's to almost 8000 a year globally in 2015 [25]. As systematic reviews have a signi cant impact on both development of health policy and practice [49] it is increasingly important to increase accessibility of current evidence through translation with an equity focus [50].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, single clinical studies, even high quality randomised controlled trials are insu cient to address health inequities and drive change in clinical practice [22,23,24]. Conducting comprehensive systematic reviews and then translating these reviews into accessible plain language summaries and guidelines is critical for successfully translating clinical science into improved health [25,26]. Grimshaw 2012 states that addressing barriers to knowledge translation and health implementation is an essential step this process [27].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Experts Prioritize Osteoarthritis Non-Surgical Interventions From Cochrane Systematic Reviews for Translation Into “Evidence4Equity” Summaries.

Houlding

Petkovic

Lebel

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Osteoarthritis carries substantial health and socioeconomic burden, which is particularly marked in marginalised groups. It is imperative that practitioners have ready access to summaries of evidence-based interventions for osteoarthritis that incorporate equity considerations. Summaries of systematic reviews can provide this. The present study surveyed experts to inform the selection of interventions to generate Cochrane Evidence4Equity (E4E) summaries. Methods: We identified 29 non-surgical interventions to prioritise. Key findings from these interventions were summarised and provided to 9 experts in the field of osteoarthritis. Expert participants were asked to rate interventions based on feasibility, health system effects, universality, impact on inequities, and priority for translation into equity based E4E summaries. Results: Expert participants rated land-based exercise highest for priority for translation into an E4E summaries. Conclusion: The survey generated information that can be used to direct and support knowledge translation efforts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experts Prioritize Osteoarthritis Non-Surgical Interventions From Cochrane Systematic Reviews for Translation Into “Evidence4Equity” Summaries.

Houlding

Petkovic

Lebel

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are important methods for synthesizing existing knowledge to inform public health policy and identify research gaps. [1][2][3] There is an emerging need for systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining intervention reports to account for differences in degrees to which included reports reflect either efficacy or effectiveness designs. 4,5 Systematic reviews must make assessments of the similarity of studies for inclusion on parameters, including those of study design.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of an adapted PRECIS-2 instrument to assess efficacy- and effectiveness-study designs in a systematic review of intervention studies of the hepatitis C virus-care continuum among people who use drugs

Jordan¹,

Perlman²,

Smith³

et al. 2018

CER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining intervention studies may need to categorize studies by the degree to which they reflect efficacy or effectiveness study-design elements when reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis results. Materials and methods: We identified reports presenting data from intervention studies eligible for evaluation with an adapted PRECIS-II instrument as part of a larger systematic review of the hepatitis C virus (HCV)-care continuum among people who used drugs. We applied the instrument to score reports examining any of the HCV-care-continuum steps of testing, linkage to care, and treatment on an efficacy-effectiveness spectrum. Composite scores are presented in tabular format and in stacked dot plots. Results: The adapted PRECIS-II instrument was applied to 37 unique reports that presented data on 51 HCV-care-continuum outcomes of testing (n=16), linkage to care (n=12), and treatment (n=23). Totals of 28, six, and three reports had been produced on one, two, or all three outcomes, respectively. Ten and eight studies described themselves as having efficacy or effectiveness designs, respectively; 33 did not specify. PRECIS-II composite scores for reports produced on testing, linkage to care, and treatment ranged widely: 1.22-5. Composite scores for reports examining HCV treatment indicated study designs that tended toward effectiveness (3.35), but those examining testing (3.85) or linkage (3.8) had more effectiveness-study designs (P=0.003, P=0.013, respectively). Conclusion: Reviewed reports varied widely in their use of efficacy/effectiveness-study designs, suggesting that systematic reviews and meta-analyses need to consider heterogeneity in efficacy/effectiveness study design in analyses. Most reports tended modestly toward having effectiveness designs, and treatment studies contained the most elements of efficacy-study designs. When assessing large numbers of reports with the PRECIS-II instrument, stacked dot plots may aid visually in depicting the range of scores. This review suggests that studies of the effectiveness of HCV treatment of people who use drugs at a population level is a research gap.

show abstract

“…The number of reports of systematic reviews of research has increased from about 80 a year in the late 1980s to more than 8000 a year today [ 1 ]. This makes it very difficult for decision makers to keep abreast of the latest evidence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Setting priorities for knowledge translation of Cochrane reviews for health equity: Evidence for Equity

Tugwell

Petkovic

Welch

et al. 2017

Int J Equity Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA focus on equity in health can be seen in many global development goals and reports, research and international declarations. With the development of a relevant framework and methods, the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group has encouraged the application of an ‘equity lens’ to systematic reviews, and many organizations publish reviews intended to address health equity.The purpose of the Evidence for Equity (E4E) project was to conduct a priority-setting exercise and apply an equity lens by developing a knowledge translation product comprising summaries of systematic reviews from the Cochrane Library. E4E translates evidence from systematic reviews into ‘friendly front end’ summaries for policy makers.MethodsThe following topic areas with high burdens of disease globally, were selected for the pilot: diabetes/obesity, HIV/AIDS, malaria, nutrition, and mental health/depression. For each topic area, a “stakeholder panel” was assembled that included policymakers and researchers. A systematic search of Cochrane reviews was conducted for each area to identify equity-relevant interventions with a meaningful impact. Panel chairs developed a rating sheet which was used by all panels to rank the importance of these interventions by: 1) Ease of Implementation; 2) Health System Requirements; 3)Universality/Generalizability/Share of Burden; and 4) Impact on Inequities/Effect on equity.The ratings of panel members were averaged for each intervention and criterion, and interventions were ordered according to the average overall ratings.ResultsStakeholder panels identified the top 10 interventions from their respective topic areas. The evidence on these interventions is being summarized with an equity focus and the results posted online, at http://methods.cochrane.org/equity/e4e-series.ConclusionsThis method provides an explicit approach to setting priorities by systematic review groups and funders for providing decision makers with evidence for the most important equity-relevant interventions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12939-017-0697-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Increasing the Incidence and Influence of Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Practice

Cited by 33 publications

References 5 publications

Experts Prioritize Osteoarthritis Non-Surgical Interventions From Cochrane Systematic Reviews for Translation Into “Evidence4Equity” Summaries.

Experts Prioritize Osteoarthritis Non-Surgical Interventions From Cochrane Systematic Reviews for Translation Into “Evidence4Equity” Summaries.

Application of an adapted PRECIS-2 instrument to assess efficacy- and effectiveness-study designs in a systematic review of intervention studies of the hepatitis C virus-care continuum among people who use drugs

Setting priorities for knowledge translation of Cochrane reviews for health equity: Evidence for Equity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About