Published July 15, 2021 | Version v1
Journal article Open

Evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development group members: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]

  • 1. Health Research Board Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice,, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
  • 2. Health Information and Quality Authority, Ireland
  • 3. School of Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
  • 4. Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, Galway, Ireland
  • 5. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  • 6. Health Information and Quality Authority, Dublin, Ireland ; Department of Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
  • 7. Health Research Board Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice,, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland ; Health Information and Quality Authority, Dublin, Ireland

Description

Introduction: Evidence syntheses, often in the form of systematic reviews, are essential for clinical guideline development and informing changes to health policies. However, clinical guideline development groups (CGDG) are multidisciplinary, and participants such as policymakers, healthcare professionals and patient representatives can face obstacles when trying to understand and use evidence synthesis findings. Summary formats to communicate the results of evidence syntheses have become increasingly common, but it is currently unclear which format is most effective for different stakeholders. This mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) evaluates the effectiveness and acceptability of different evidence synthesis summary formats for CGDG members.
Methods: This protocol follows guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute on MMSRs and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA)-P guideline. A comprehensive search of six databases will be performed with no language restrictions. Primary outcomes are those relating to the effectiveness and preferences for and attitudes towards the different summary formats. We will include qualitative research and randomised controlled trials. Two reviewers will perform title, abstract, and full-text screening. Independent double-extraction of study characteristics and critical appraisal items will be undertaken using a standardised form. We will use a convergent segregated approach to analyse quantitative and qualitative data separately; results will then be integrated.
Discussion: The results of this systematic review will provide an overview of the effectiveness and acceptability of different summary formats for evidence synthesis findings. These findings can be helpful for those in or communicating to guideline development groups. The results can also inform the development and pilot-testing of summary formats for evidence summaries.

Files

evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development group members.pdf