SynthesisBMJ open2014
Improving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effectiveness and acceptability of evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development groups: a mixed-methods systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2022Pooled it
- Performance-Based Executive Function Instruments Used by Occupational Therapists for Children: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties.Occupational therapy international · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic mapping of checklists for assessing transferability.Systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Educational Interventions for Cervical Cancer Screening Behavior of Women: A Systematic ReviewAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2018Pooled it
- Qualitative evaluation of two web-based tools to improve accessibility of evidence reports.Learning health systems · 2023Article
- Incorporating the Concept of Relevance in Clinical Rehabilitation Research and Its Reviews May Improve Uptake by Stakeholders.American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Assessing the impact of knowledge communication and dissemination strategies targeted at health policy-makers and managers: an overview of systematic reviews.Health research policy and systems · 2021Review
- Use and value of systematic reviews in English local authority public health: a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2020Article
- The TRANSFER Approach for assessing the transferability of systematic review findings.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Outcomes of HIV treatment from the private sector in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Implementing an initiative to promote evidence-informed practice: part 1 - a description of the Evidence Rounds programme.BMC medical education · 2019Article
- Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: what is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study.Implementation science : IS · 2018Review
- Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 11: reporting outcomes of an evidence-driven approach to disinvestment in a local healthcare setting.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 8: developing, implementing and evaluating an evidence dissemination service in a local healthcare setting.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 7: supporting staff in evidence-based decision-making, implementation and evaluation in a local healthcare setting.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Designing a rapid response program to support evidence-informed decision-making in the Americas region: using the best available evidence and case studies.Implementation science : IS · 2016Review
- Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2016Article
- Trading quality for relevance: non-health decision-makers' use of evidence on the social determinants of health.BMJ open · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLittle is known about the barriers, facilitators and interventions that impact on systematic review uptake. The objective of this study was to identify how uptake of systematic reviews can be improved. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they addressed interventions enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews. Reports in any language were included. All decisionmakers were eligible. Studies could be randomised trials, cluster-randomised trials, controlled-clinical trials and before-and-after studies. DATA SOURCES: We searched 19 databases including PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, covering the full range of publication years from inception to December 2010. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality according to the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care criteria.
results10 studies from 11 countries, containing 12 interventions met our criteria. Settings included a hospital, a government department and a medical school. Doctors, nurses, mid-wives, patients and programme managers were targeted. Six of the studies were geared to improving knowledge and attitudes while four targeted clinical practice. SYNTHESIS OF
resultsThree studies of low-to-moderate risk of bias, identified interventions that showed a statistically significant improvement: educational visits, short summaries of systematic reviews and targeted messaging. Promising interventions include e-learning, computer-based learning, inactive workshops, use of knowledge brokers and an e-registry of reviews. Juxtaposing barriers and facilitators alongside the identified interventions, it was clear that the three effective approaches addressed a wide range of barriers and facilitators. DISCUSSION: A limited number of studies were found for inclusion. However, the extensive literature search is one of the strengths of this review.
conclusionsTargeted messaging, educational visits and summaries are recommended to enhance systematic review uptake. Identified promising approaches need to be developed further. New strategies are required to encompass neglected barriers and facilitators. This review addressed effectiveness and also appropriateness of knowledge uptake strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.