Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27938409›Full record

SynthesisImplementation science : IS2016

The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review.

Jennifer Petkovic, Vivian Welch, Maria Helena Jacob, Manosila Yoganathan, Ana Patricia Ayala, Heather Cunningham, Peter Tugwell

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Creating Interactive Data Dashboards for Evidence Syntheses.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Jennifer PetkovicUniversity of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia. jennifer.petkovic@uottawa.ca.
Vivian WelchBruyère Research Institute, University of Ottawa, 43 Bruyère Street, Annex E room 302, Ottawa, ON, K1N 5C8, Canada.
Maria Helena JacobBruyère Research Institute, University of Ottawa, 43 Bruyère Street, Annex E room 302, Ottawa, ON, K1N 5C8, Canada.
Manosila YoganathanBruyère Research Institute, University of Ottawa, 43 Bruyère Street, Annex E room 302, Ottawa, ON, K1N 5C8, Canada.
Ana Patricia AyalaGerstein Science Information Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Heather CunninghamGerstein Science Information Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Peter TugwellDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic reviews are important for decision makers. They offer many potential benefits but are often written in technical language, are too long, and do not contain contextual details which make them hard to use for decision-making. There are many organizations that develop and disseminate derivative products, such as evidence summaries, from systematic reviews for different populations or subsets of decision makers. This systematic review aimed to (1) assess the effectiveness of evidence summaries on policymakers' use of the evidence and (2) identify the most effective summary components for increasing policymakers' use of the evidence. We present an overview of the available evidence on systematic review derivative products.

methodsWe included studies of policymakers at all levels as well as health system managers. We included studies examining any type of "evidence summary," "policy brief," or other products derived from systematic reviews that presented evidence in a summarized form. The primary outcomes were the (1) use of systematic review summaries in decision-making (e.g., self-reported use of the evidence in policymaking and decision-making) and (2) policymakers' understanding, knowledge, and/or beliefs (e.g., changes in knowledge scores about the topic included in the summary). We also assessed perceived relevance, credibility, usefulness, understandability, and desirability (e.g., format) of the summaries.

resultsOur database search combined with our gray literature search yielded 10,113 references after removal of duplicates. From these, 54 were reviewed in full text, and we included six studies (reported in seven papers) as well as protocols from two ongoing studies. Two studies assessed the use of evidence summaries in decision-making and found little to no difference in effect. There was also little to no difference in effect for knowledge, understanding or beliefs (four studies), and perceived usefulness or usability (three studies). Summary of findings tables and graded entry summaries were perceived as slightly easier to understand compared to complete systematic reviews. Two studies assessed formatting changes and found that for summary of findings tables, certain elements, such as reporting study event rates and absolute differences, were preferred as well as avoiding the use of footnotes.

conclusionsEvidence summaries are likely easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. However, their ability to increase the use of systematic review evidence in policymaking is unclear.

trial registrationThe protocol was published in the journal Systematic Reviews (2015;4:122).

Indexed as

Administrative PersonnelHealth PolicyPolicy MakingReview Literature as TopicHumansEvidence summariesPolicymakersSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID27938409
PMCPMC5148903

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.