Michelle Richardson, Theo Lorenc, Katy Sutcliffe, Amanda Sowden, James Thomas
{"title":"最佳证据工具包:关于预防暴力侵害妇女和女童行为干预措施的案例研究。","authors":"Michelle Richardson, Theo Lorenc, Katy Sutcliffe, Amanda Sowden, James Thomas","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02798-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research teams report challenges in conducting overviews and many of these relate to the synthesis of outcome data from multiple reviews that lead to unclear evidence. This limits research from being used by policymakers and other review users who need accessible robust evidence. In this commentary, we present a case study on creating a toolkit of interventions for preventing violence against women and girls (VAWG). This toolkit is underpinned by systematic methods and a priori criteria that identify a single best up-to-date systematic review of each subtopic. The best evidence toolkit approach does not require the synthesis of multiple reviews and produces clear, standardised evidence across subtopics efficiently. This approach offers a pragmatic alternative to overviews when presenting a broad spectrum of intervention approaches, populations or outcomes. This approach may be particularly beneficial when the primary aim is to communicate with policymakers.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"112"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12082913/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Best evidence toolkits: a case study on interventions for preventing violence against women and girls (VAWG).\",\"authors\":\"Michelle Richardson, Theo Lorenc, Katy Sutcliffe, Amanda Sowden, James Thomas\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13643-025-02798-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Research teams report challenges in conducting overviews and many of these relate to the synthesis of outcome data from multiple reviews that lead to unclear evidence. This limits research from being used by policymakers and other review users who need accessible robust evidence. In this commentary, we present a case study on creating a toolkit of interventions for preventing violence against women and girls (VAWG). This toolkit is underpinned by systematic methods and a priori criteria that identify a single best up-to-date systematic review of each subtopic. The best evidence toolkit approach does not require the synthesis of multiple reviews and produces clear, standardised evidence across subtopics efficiently. This approach offers a pragmatic alternative to overviews when presenting a broad spectrum of intervention approaches, populations or outcomes. This approach may be particularly beneficial when the primary aim is to communicate with policymakers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"112\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12082913/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02798-z\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02798-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Best evidence toolkits: a case study on interventions for preventing violence against women and girls (VAWG).
Research teams report challenges in conducting overviews and many of these relate to the synthesis of outcome data from multiple reviews that lead to unclear evidence. This limits research from being used by policymakers and other review users who need accessible robust evidence. In this commentary, we present a case study on creating a toolkit of interventions for preventing violence against women and girls (VAWG). This toolkit is underpinned by systematic methods and a priori criteria that identify a single best up-to-date systematic review of each subtopic. The best evidence toolkit approach does not require the synthesis of multiple reviews and produces clear, standardised evidence across subtopics efficiently. This approach offers a pragmatic alternative to overviews when presenting a broad spectrum of intervention approaches, populations or outcomes. This approach may be particularly beneficial when the primary aim is to communicate with policymakers.
期刊介绍:
Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.