Cited by 82Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsEvaluation and Performance AssessmentDelphi Technique in Research

Mediating policy-relevant evidence at speed: are systematic reviews of systematic reviews a useful approach?

Caird, Jenny, Sutcliffe, Katy, Kwan, Irene, Dickson, Kelly, Thomas, James·2015·Evidence & Policy

Abstract

When swift, accurate appraisal of evidence is required to inform policy concerning broad research questions, and budgetary constraints limit the employment of large research teams, researchers face a significant challenge which is sometimes met by reviewing existing systematic reviews. In this paper we highlight the challenges inherent in the reviews of reviews (RoR) method in order to advance understanding of this important tool for policy makers. Drawing on our experiences, we present, where possible, potential solutions to these challenges to demonstrate that RoRs, despite their limitations, can be useful for mediating policy-relevant evidence at speed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1332/174426514x13988609036850

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caird, J., Sutcliffe, K., Kwan, I., Dickson, K., & Thomas, J.
Affiliations
University of London (GB)
Venue
Evidence & Policy
Published
2015-01
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
81-97
ISSN
  • 1744-2648 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-2656
OpenAlex
W2025817336
Cited by
81
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4
FWCI
6.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Evidence & Policy (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
systematic reviews, evidence appraisal, evidence-informed policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review