TY - JOUR
T1 - Methods proposed for monitoring the implementation of evidence-based research
T2 - a cross-sectional study
AU - Puljak, Livia
AU - Bala, Małgorzata M
AU - Zając, Joanna
AU - Meštrović, Tomislav
AU - Buttiġieġ, Sandra
AU - Yanakoulia, Mary
AU - Briel, Matthias
AU - Lunny, Carole
AU - Lesniak, Wiktoria
AU - Poklepović Peričić, Tina
AU - Alonso-Coello, Pablo
AU - Clarke, Mike
AU - Djulbegovic, Benjamin
AU - Gartlehner, Gerald
AU - Giannakou, Konstantinos
AU - Glenny, Anne-Marie
AU - Glenton, Claire
AU - Guyatt, Gordon
AU - Hemkens, Lars G
AU - Ioannidis, John P A
AU - Jaeschke, Roman
AU - Juhl Jørgensen, Karsten
AU - Martins-Pfeifer, Carolina Castro
AU - Marušić, Ana
AU - Mbuagbaw, Lawrence
AU - Meneses Echavez, Jose Francisco
AU - Moher, David
AU - Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara
AU - Page, Matthew J
AU - Pérez-Gaxiola, Giordano
AU - Robinson, Karen A
AU - Salanti, Georgia
AU - Saldanha, Ian J
AU - Savović, Jelena
AU - Thomas, James
AU - Tricco, Andrea C
AU - Tugwell, Peter
AU - van Hoof, Joost
AU - Pieper, Dawid
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2024/4/1
Y1 - 2024/4/1
N2 - OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based research (EBR) is the systematic and transparent use of prior research to inform a new study so that it answers questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. This study surveyed experts about existing (e.g. citation analysis) and new methods for monitoring EBR and collected ideas about implementing these methods.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a cross-sectional study via an online survey between November 2022 and March 2023. Participants were experts from the fields of evidence synthesis and research methodology in health research. Open-ended questions were coded by recurring themes; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative questions.RESULTS: Twenty-eight expert participants suggested that citation analysis should be supplemented with content evaluation (not just what is cited, but also in which context), content expert involvement, and assessment of the quality of cited systematic reviews. They also suggested that citation analysis could be facilitated with automation tools. They emphasized that EBR monitoring should be conducted by ethics committees and funding bodies before the research starts. Challenges identified for EBR implementation monitoring were resource constraints and clarity on responsibility for EBR monitoring.CONCLUSIONS: Ideas proposed in this study for monitoring the implementation of EBR can be used to refine methods and define responsibility but should be further explored in terms of feasibility and acceptability. Different methods may be needed to determine if the use of EBR is improving over time.
AB - OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based research (EBR) is the systematic and transparent use of prior research to inform a new study so that it answers questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. This study surveyed experts about existing (e.g. citation analysis) and new methods for monitoring EBR and collected ideas about implementing these methods.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a cross-sectional study via an online survey between November 2022 and March 2023. Participants were experts from the fields of evidence synthesis and research methodology in health research. Open-ended questions were coded by recurring themes; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative questions.RESULTS: Twenty-eight expert participants suggested that citation analysis should be supplemented with content evaluation (not just what is cited, but also in which context), content expert involvement, and assessment of the quality of cited systematic reviews. They also suggested that citation analysis could be facilitated with automation tools. They emphasized that EBR monitoring should be conducted by ethics committees and funding bodies before the research starts. Challenges identified for EBR implementation monitoring were resource constraints and clarity on responsibility for EBR monitoring.CONCLUSIONS: Ideas proposed in this study for monitoring the implementation of EBR can be used to refine methods and define responsibility but should be further explored in terms of feasibility and acceptability. Different methods may be needed to determine if the use of EBR is improving over time.
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111247
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111247
M3 - Article (Academic Journal)
C2 - 38185190
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 168
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
M1 - 111247
ER -