Abstract
BackgroundTo support evidence-informed education, health professions education (HPE) stakeholders encourage the creation and use of knowledge syntheses or reviews. However, it is unclear if these knowledge syntheses are ready for translation into educational practice. Without understanding the readiness, defined by three criteria—quality, accessibility and relevance—we risk translating weak evidence into practice and/or providing information that is not useful to educators.MethodsA librarian searched Web of Science for knowledge syntheses, specifically Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) Guides. This meta-synthesis focuses on BEME Guides because of their explicit goal to inform educational practice and policy. Two authors extracted data from all Guides, guided by the 25-item STructured apprOach to the Reporting In healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis (STORIES).ResultsForty-two Guides published in Medical Teacher between 1999 and 2017 were analyzed. No Guide met all STORIES criteria, but all included structured summaries and most described their literature search (n = 39) and study inclusion/exclusion (n = 40) procedures. Eleven Guides reported the presence of theory and/or educational principles, and eight consulted with external subject matter experts. Accessibility to each Guide’s full-text and supplemental materials was variable.DiscussionFor a subset of HPE knowledge syntheses, BEME Guides, this meta-synthesis identifies factors that support readiness and indicates potential areas of improvement, such as consistent access to Guides and inclusion of external subject matter experts on the review team. This analysis is useful for understanding the current readiness of HPE knowledge syntheses and informing future reviews to evolve so they can catalyze translation of evidence into educational practice.
Highlights
IntroductionFor almost 20 years, the Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) Collaboration has supported health professions education (HPE) researchers in conducting and disseminating knowledge syntheses, which are known as BEME Guides
Records idenƟfied through database searching (n = 98)In health professions education (HPE), researchers have argued that knowledge syntheses are as important as primary studies [1]
For almost 20 years, the Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) Collaboration has supported HPE researchers in conducting and disseminating knowledge syntheses, which are known as BEME Guides
Summary
For almost 20 years, the Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) Collaboration has supported HPE researchers in conducting and disseminating knowledge syntheses, which are known as BEME Guides Despite support for their creation and swelling numbers [2], knowledge syntheses, especially systematic reviews, have been criticized by those who try to use them, and by those who publish them [1, 3,4,5]. Methods A librarian searched Web of Science for knowledge syntheses, Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) Guides This meta-synthesis focuses on BEME Guides because of their explicit goal to inform educational practice and policy. Accessibility to each Guide’s full-text and supplemental materials was variable
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
