A comment-driven evidence appraisal approach to promoting research findings into practice when only uncertain evidence is available.

BACKGROUND: Comments in PubMed are usually short papers for supporting or refuting claims, or discussing methods and findings in original articles. This study aims to explore whether they can be used as a quick and reliable evidence appraisal instrument for promoting research findings into practice, especially in emergency situations such as COVID-19 in which only missing, incomplete or uncertain evidence is available. METHODS: Evidence-comment networks (ECNs) were constructed by linking COVID-19-related articles to the commentaries (letters, editorials or brief correspondence) they received. PubTator Central was used to extract entities with a high volume of comments from the titles and abstracts of the articles. Among them, six drugs were selected, and their evidence assertions were analysed by exploring the structural information in the ECNs as well as the sentiment of the comments (positive, negative, neutral). Recommendations in WHO guidelines were used as the gold standard control to validate the consistency, coverage and efficiency of comments in reshaping clinical knowledge claims. RESULTS: The overall positive/negative sentiments of comments were aligned with recommendations for/against the corresponding treatments in the WHO guidelines. Comment topics covered all significant points of evidence appraisal and beyond. Furthermore, comments may indicate the uncertainty regarding drug use for clinical practice. Half of the critical comments emerged 4.25 months earlier on average than the guideline release. CONCLUSIONS: Comments have the potential as a support tool for rapid evidence appraisal as they have a selection effect by appraising the benefits, limitations and other clinical practice issues of concern in existing evidence. We suggest as a future direction an appraisal framework based on the comment topics and sentiment orientations to leverage the potential of scientific commentaries supporting evidence appraisal and decision-making.

Evidence-Based Policy Making during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this systematic review was to collect evidence and recommendations for the applicability of the concept of evidence-based policy making (EBPM) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to discuss the implementation of this concept from a medical science perspective. METHODS: This study was performed according to the guidelines, checklist, and flow diagram of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020. An electronic literature search was conducted on September 20, 2022 using PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases with the following search terms: "evidence based policy making" and "infectious disease." Study eligibility assessment was performed based on the flow diagram of PRISMA 2020, and risk of bias assessment was performed using The Critical Appraisal Skills Program. RESULTS: Eleven eligible articles were included in this review and divided into three groups as follows: early, middle, and late stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Basics of COVID-19 control were suggested in the early stage. The articles published in the middle stage discussed the importance of the collection and analysis of evidence of COVID-19 from around the world for the establishment of EBPM in the COVID-19 pandemic. The articles published in the late stage discussed the collection of large amounts of high-quality data and the development of methods to analyze them, as well as emerging issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that the concept of EBPM applicable to emerging infectious disease pandemics changed between the early, middle, and late stages of the pandemic. The concept of EBPM will play an important role in medicine in the future.

Evidence based policy making during times of uncertainty through the lens of future policy makers: four recommendations to harmonise and guide health policy making in the future.

The Covid-19 pandemic has not only outlined the importance of using evidence in the healthcare policy making process but also the complexity that exists between policymakers and the scientific community. As a matter of fact, scientific data is just one of many other concurrent factors, including economic, social and cultural, that may provide the rationale for policy making. The pandemic has also raised citizens' awareness and represented an unprecedented moment of willingness to access and understand the evidence underpinning health policies.This commentary provides policy recommendations to improve evidence-based policy making in health, through the lens of a young generation of public policy students and future policymakers, enrolled in a 24-hour course at Sciences Po Paris entitled "Evidence-based policy-making in health: theory and practice(s)".Four out of 11 recommendations were prioritised and presented in this commentary which target both policymakers and the scientific community to make better use of evidence-based policy making in health. First, policy makers and scientists should build trusting partnerships with citizens and engage them, especially those facing our target health care issues or systems. Second, while artificial intelligence raises new opportunities in healthcare, its use in contexts of uncertainty should be addressed by policymakers in terms of liability and ethics. Third, conflicts of interest must be disclosed as much as possible and effectively managed to (re) build a trust relationship between policymakers, the scientific community and citizens, implying the need for risk management tools and cross border disclosure mechanisms. Last, well-designed and secure health information systems need to be implemented, following the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) principles for health data. This will take us a step further from data to 'policy wisdom'.Overall, these recommendations identified and formulated by students highlight some key issues that need to be rethought in the health policy cycle through elements like institutional incentives, cultural changes and dialogue between policy makers and the scientific community. This input from a younger generation of students highlights the importance of making the conversation on evidence-based policy making in health accessible to all generations and backgrounds.

Learning from the Pandemic: Scientific Knowledge and Political Decision- Making Processes

This article addresses the issue of the relationship between political decisions and scientific knowledge: it focuses on the way in which the Italian Governments that faced the Covid-19 pandemic resorted to expert advice, in order to obtain the data, indicators and knowledge necessary to provide evidence-based decisions. The contribution offers an excursus of the reasons why part of the Italian doctrine theorized the existence of a constitutional principle of «science reserve», underlining how the principle itself stems from the constitutional case law. The analysis of the ways in which the relationship between scientific knowledge and political decision-making processes unfolded during the pandemic is conducted in order to draw some suggestions for the future from the experience still in progress. © 2022 Societa Editrice il Mulino. All rights reserved.