Methodological components, structure and quality assessment tools for evidence summaries: a scoping review
Ashley Whitehorn,Craig Lockwood,Yan Hu,Weijie Xing,Zheng Zhu,Kylie Porritt
DOI: https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-23-00557
2024-08-28
Abstract:Objective: The objective of this review was to identify and map the available information related to the definition, structure, and core methodological components of evidence summaries, as well as to identify any indicators of quality. Introduction: Evidence summaries offer a practical solution to overcoming some of the barriers present in evidence-based health care, such as lack of access to evidence at the point of care, and the knowledge and expertise to evaluate the quality and translate the evidence into clinical decision-making. However, lack of transparency in reporting and inconsistencies in the methodology of evidence summary development have previously been cited and pose problems for end-users (eg, clinicians, policymakers). Inclusion criteria: Any English-language resource that described the methodological development or appraisal of an evidence summary was included. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL (EBSCOhost) were systematically searched in November 2019, with no limits on the search. The search was updated in June 2021 and January 2023. Gray literature searches and pearling of references of included sources were also conducted at the same time as the database searches. All resources (ie, articles, papers, books, dissertations, reports, and websites) were eligible for inclusion in the review if they evaluated or described the development or appraisal of an evidence summary methodology within a point-of-care context and were published in English. Literature reviews (eg, systematic reviews, rapid reviews), including summaries of evidence on interventions or health care activities that either measure effects, a phenomena of interest, or where the objective was the development, description or evaluation of methods without a clear point-of-care target, were excluded from the review. Results: A total of 76 resources (n=56 articles from databases and n=20 reports from gray literature sources) were included in the review. The most common type/name included critically appraised topic (n=18) and evidence summary (n=17). A total of 25 resources provided a definition of an evidence summary: commonalities included a clinical question; a structured, systematic literature search; a description of literature selection; and appraisal of evidence. Of these 25, 16 included descriptors such as brief, concise, rapid, short, succinct and snapshot. The reported methodological components closely reflected the definition results, with the most reported methodological components being a systematic, multi-database search, and critical appraisal. Evidence summary examples were mostly presented as narrative summaries and usually included a reference list, background or clinical context, and recommendations or implications for practice or policy. Four quality assessment tools and a systematic review of tools were included. Conclusions: The findings of this study highlight the wide variability in the definition, language, methodological components and structure used for point-of-care resources that met our definition of an evidence summary. This scoping review is one of the first steps aimed at improving the credibility and transparency of evidence summaries in evidence-based health care, with further research required to standardize the definitions and methodologies associated with point-of-care resources and accepted tools for quality assessment. Supplemental digital content: A Chinese-language version of the abstract of this review is available at http://links.lww.com/SRX/A59, studies ineligible following full-text review http://links.lww.com/SRX/A60.