Methods proposed for monitoring the implementation of evidence-based research: a cross-sectional study
Livia Puljak; Małgorzata Bala; Joanna Zając; Tomislav Meštrović; Sandra Buttiġieġ; Mary Yanakoulia; Matthias Briel; Carole Lunny; Wiktoria Leśniak; Tina Poklepović Peričić; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Mike Clarke; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Gerald Gartlehner; Konstantinos Giannakou; Anne-Marie Glenny; Claire Glenton; Gordon Guyatt; Lars Hemkens; John Ioannidis; Roman Jaeschke; Karsten Jørgensen; Carolina Martins-Pfeifer; Ana Marušić; Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Jose Meneses Echavez; David Moher; Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit; Matthew Page; Giordano Pérez-Gaxiola; Karen Robinson; Georgia Salanti; Ian Saldanha; Jelena Savović; James Thomas; Andrea Tricco; Peter Tugwell; Joost Van Hoof; Dawid Pieper
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Ministerial score = 140.0
Journal Impact Factor (2023) = 7.2 (Q1)
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. Conclusion: 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.
DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111247
