Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2026
ESIC Series: Paper 6 Advancing methods and process innovation for evidence synthesis: recommendations from the evidence synthesis infrastructure collaborative working group 4.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Durao Solange, Campbell Fiona, Turner Tari, Lopes Luciane Cruz, Working Group 4
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To identify and prioritize opportunities to strengthen methodological and process innovation in global evidence synthesis, ensuring timely, equitable, and high-quality syntheses that can inform decision-making across sectors.The Evidence Synthesis Infrastructure Collaborative (ESIC) was established to optimize global capacity for producing and using living evidence syntheses. Working Group 4 (WG4) focused on developing scalable, equitable, and context-sensitive methods to make evidence synthesis "radically more timely, relevant, and affordable."
METHODS: WG4 applied the UK Design Council's Double Diamond framework for Innovation through a 6-month, multiphase process involving 19 members from 12 countries. Methods included virtual workshops, surveys, interviews, and public consultations to map and assess the maturity level of capabilities across the evidence synthesis lifecycle. Solutions were prioritized using benefit-impact-effort criteria.
RESULTS: Nine key capability gaps were identified, including limited coordination, inconsistent quality assurance, inequitable access to data, and insufficient cross-sector integration. Seventy-six potential solutions were generated, of which eleven were prioritized under the AACC framework: Access, Agility, Context, and Connections, such as establishing evidence support units, shared quality and certainty-of-evidence standards, mechanisms to improve equitable access to data and synthesis capacity in low-resource settings, and a global academy for evidence synthesis. The process highlighted strong alignment between WG4's recommendations and other ESIC working groups, underscoring a shared global vision. Challenges included limited consultation time and linguistic and contextual diversity across regions, though overall engagement was broad and constructive.
CONCLUSION: A coordinated, equitable infrastructure for evidence synthesis, grounded in methodological rigor, inclusivity, explicit assessment of certainty and applicability of evidence, and responsiveness is essential to ensure evidence remains credible, accessible, and actionable for global policy and practice.
METHODS: WG4 applied the UK Design Council's Double Diamond framework for Innovation through a 6-month, multiphase process involving 19 members from 12 countries. Methods included virtual workshops, surveys, interviews, and public consultations to map and assess the maturity level of capabilities across the evidence synthesis lifecycle. Solutions were prioritized using benefit-impact-effort criteria.
RESULTS: Nine key capability gaps were identified, including limited coordination, inconsistent quality assurance, inequitable access to data, and insufficient cross-sector integration. Seventy-six potential solutions were generated, of which eleven were prioritized under the AACC framework: Access, Agility, Context, and Connections, such as establishing evidence support units, shared quality and certainty-of-evidence standards, mechanisms to improve equitable access to data and synthesis capacity in low-resource settings, and a global academy for evidence synthesis. The process highlighted strong alignment between WG4's recommendations and other ESIC working groups, underscoring a shared global vision. Challenges included limited consultation time and linguistic and contextual diversity across regions, though overall engagement was broad and constructive.
CONCLUSION: A coordinated, equitable infrastructure for evidence synthesis, grounded in methodological rigor, inclusivity, explicit assessment of certainty and applicability of evidence, and responsiveness is essential to ensure evidence remains credible, accessible, and actionable for global policy and practice.