Evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development group members: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol

Melissa K Sharp,Kamal R Mahtani,Dayang Anis Binti Awang Baki,Declan Devane,Máirín Ryan,Susan M Smith,Barrie Tyner,Barbara Clyne,Cormac Farrell,Michelle O'Neill

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13325.1

Abstract

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.

Highlights

Evidence syntheses, often in the form of systematic reviews, are essential for clinical guideline development and informing changes to health policies
Guideline development groups comprise a range of decision makers, often including healthcare professionals, methodologists, health policymakers, clinicians, and patient representatives – all of whom have varying levels of expertise in evidence synthesis methods
This increase in different types of evidence synthesis methods further complicates matters for guideline development groups, who may interpret different types of systematic reviews in different ways based on how familiar they might be with particular approaches

Summary

Introduction

Often in the form of systematic reviews, are essential for clinical guideline development and informing changes to health policies. Guideline development groups comprise a range of decision makers, often including healthcare professionals, methodologists, health policymakers, clinicians, and patient representatives – all of whom have varying levels of expertise in evidence synthesis methods. This complicates the consensus process as stakeholders may prioritise and understand the findings of evidence syntheses, such as systematic reviews, differently[6]. The expansion of evidence, and in decision makers openness to accepting trade-offs in validity[15], has resulted in the growing popularity of other evidence synthesis methods, such as rapid reviews[16] This increase in different types of evidence synthesis methods further complicates matters for guideline development groups, who may interpret different types of systematic reviews in different ways based on how familiar they might be with particular approaches

Objectives

Results

Conclusion