Abstract:The world is poised for a step‐change improvement in how we use evidence to address societal challenges. Given the speed at which plans are being made to support this once‐in‐a‐generation transformation, the Implementation Council of the Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges developed a working version of the features of an approach to reliably getting research evidence to those who need it and achieved consensus among leaders from the Implementation Council, as well as the Alliance for Living Evidence (Alive) Council and Evidence Synthesis International (ESI). Drawing an acronym from the first letter of each of the six features, the 'SHOW ME the evidence' features are as follows. The 100+ contributing authors from across the 'evidence synthesis and support' world want to ensure that our future plans are firmly rooted in an agreed‐upon summary of all we have learned together over these past four or so years, and to signal a mutual accountability among many of the key players involved in providing evidence support that we will each do our part in delivering on the promise that motivates these plans. Given that much of the momentum for transformation is currently focused on living evidence syntheses and the infrastructure needed to support them, we give this form of evidence disproportionate focus here. An even more diverse set of partners should be engaged in designing and executing an inclusive process for the refinement or even reshaping of these features over time, as well as their ongoing operationalization. This includes more types of decision makers, those working with more forms of evidence, and funders, as well as even more contributors from across the Global South. Support systems locally that use many forms of research evidence to help address local priorities Every jurisdiction needs a reliable evidence‐support system to get whatever forms of evidence are needed to address a local priority into the hands of those who need it, when they need it, in whatever form they need it, and with any required caveats about its currency, quality, and local applicability [1]. Locally can mean nations as well as subnational jurisdictions like provinces and cities. It can mean formal regional groupings of countries like the European Union and informal regional groupings of small countries with shared challenges. It can also mean systems, like the health or social‐care system. The forms of evidence can include research evidence from the 'local' context (e.g. data analytics, evaluation, and behavioural or implementation research), research evidence from around the world (i.e. evidence synthesis), and other types of information (e.g. horizon scanning and people's lived experiences) and ways of knowing (e.g. Indigenous knowledge). Addressing a local priority is ideally informed by an understanding of a problem (and its causes and alternative ways of framing it), options to address the problem (including those already in use at a small scale), implementation considerations, and how to monitor implementation and evaluate impact. Research evidence can inform such understandings alongside political and social insights. Those who need research evidence can include government policy makers (from central agencies like Treasury, line departments like Education, and legislatures), organizational leaders (from both nongovernmental organizations and private companies), professionals (like nurses, teachers and veterinarians), and citizens (in the broadest sense of that term, and inclusive of undocumented individuals, as described in section 3.6 of the Global Evidence Commission report 2022). They also need enablers, culture and capacity for evidence use. Many decision makers need actionable insights from research evidence quickly when a 'window of opportunity' opens. Sometimes these windows are open for days, other times weeks, and rarely for longer. Evidence support can now work at the same speed as decision‐making processes. Some decision makers may want the evidence presented to them as 'best buys' (e.g. Global Education Evidence Advisory Panel), others by broad approach (e.g. Education Endowment Foundation), and still others by branded programme (e.g. IES What Works Clearinghouse). Applicability can mean both for local contexts and for groups in a range of contexts, including groups most affected by historical and acute inequities. Harmonized efforts globally that make it easier to learn from others around the world One aspect of evidence support that can now best be undertaken through harmonized efforts globally is to provide regularly updated summaries of what we have learned from around the world and how these findings vary by groups and contexts. 'Living evidence synthesis' is a relatively new approach to producing and maintaining these summaries [2]. The take‐up of this approach accelerated during the COVID‐19 pandemic -Abstract Truncated-

A Causal Roadmap for Generating High-Quality Real-World Evidence

The Causal Roadmap and Simulations to Improve the Rigor and Reproducibility of Real-data Applications

Generate Analysis-Ready Data for Real-world Evidence: Tutorial for Harnessing Electronic Health Records With Advanced Informatic Technologies

TRIALSCOPE: A Unifying Causal Framework for Scaling Real-World Evidence Generation with Biomedical Language Models

An Application of the Causal Roadmap in Two Safety Monitoring Case Studies: Covariate-Adjustment and Outcome Prediction using Electronic Health Record Data

Evaluating and improving real-world evidence with Targeted Learning

Targeted learning: Towards a future informed by real-world evidence

Using Certification to Promote Uptake of Real-World Evidence by Payers

The Landscape of Causal Discovery Data: Grounding Causal Discovery in Real-World Applications

Considerations for the Use of Machine Learning Extracted Real-World Data to Support Evidence Generation: A Research-Centric Evaluation Framework

Generating Real-World Evidence from Unstructured Clinical Notes to Examine Clinical Utility of Genetic Tests: Use Case in BRCAness

Generating the right evidence at the right time: Principles of a new class of flexible augmented clinical trial designs

Real-World Evidence: A Primer

Use of Real‐World Evidence to Drive Drug Development Strategy and Inform Clinical Trial Design

Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence in Healthcare in the United States and Europe Union

Evidence Gap Maps as Critical Information Communication Devices for Evidence-based Public Policy

SHOW ME the evidence: Features of an approach to reliably deliver research evidence to those who need it

EvidenceMap: a three-level knowledge representation for medical evidence computation and comprehension

Understanding evidence ecosystems: What influences the production, translation, and use of modeled evidence in Burkina Faso, Nigeria, India, and Kenya?

Subjective evidence evaluation survey for many-analysts studies

The maze of real-world evidence frameworks: from a desert to a jungle! An environmental scan and comparison across regulatory and health technology assessment agencies