Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: BMJ Clinical Evidence is an online database of systematic overviews, launched in 1999. With each content update, topics have grown in scope and/or the underlying evidence base, increasing the complexity and length of updating. This has also made it increasingly difficult for users to navigate the resource and quickly find the relevant information.
Objectives: In the 2013 to 2014 cycle of updating, we decided to re-scope all 250 BMJ Clinical Evidence topics to focus on areas where an overview of the evidence would have maximum impact on clinical decision making.
Methods: The editorial teams, led by a clinical editor, met with each topic’s expert contributors to identify the key clinical questions where there were uncertainties or emerging evidence. A new structured topic landing page was designed that discusses the rationale for the chosen topic coverage, summarises the search and appraisal, and provides clinical comments on the evidence.
Results: All 253 BMJ Clinical Evidence topics have now been re-scoped. With the broad range of common clinical conditions covered, the editorial team has used a variety of approaches to find the most important clinical PICO (population, intervention, comparison and outcomes) questions that matter. For some topics, the key aspect of interest is a specific population (e.g. people with rheumatoid arthritis who are treatment naive), for others an emerging intervention (e.g. online interventions for bulimia nervosa), or a particular comparison (e.g. versus active interventions rather than placebo). Fifty-five of our overviews have now completed the updating cycle, with new reviews being published every week. Re-focusing has reduced the average time for updating by one-third, with one-third of topics now being published within six months of the search date.
Conclusions: Re-scoping to focus on areas where a review of the evidence matters is helping to make our overviews more relevant and current.
Objectives: In the 2013 to 2014 cycle of updating, we decided to re-scope all 250 BMJ Clinical Evidence topics to focus on areas where an overview of the evidence would have maximum impact on clinical decision making.
Methods: The editorial teams, led by a clinical editor, met with each topic’s expert contributors to identify the key clinical questions where there were uncertainties or emerging evidence. A new structured topic landing page was designed that discusses the rationale for the chosen topic coverage, summarises the search and appraisal, and provides clinical comments on the evidence.
Results: All 253 BMJ Clinical Evidence topics have now been re-scoped. With the broad range of common clinical conditions covered, the editorial team has used a variety of approaches to find the most important clinical PICO (population, intervention, comparison and outcomes) questions that matter. For some topics, the key aspect of interest is a specific population (e.g. people with rheumatoid arthritis who are treatment naive), for others an emerging intervention (e.g. online interventions for bulimia nervosa), or a particular comparison (e.g. versus active interventions rather than placebo). Fifty-five of our overviews have now completed the updating cycle, with new reviews being published every week. Re-focusing has reduced the average time for updating by one-third, with one-third of topics now being published within six months of the search date.
Conclusions: Re-scoping to focus on areas where a review of the evidence matters is helping to make our overviews more relevant and current.