NDLI: Evidence Communication Rules for Policy (ECR-P) critical appraisal tool

Content Provider	Springer Nature : BioMed Central
Author	Danopoulos, Evangelos Aston, John A. D. Shah, Aarushi Schneider, Claudia R.
Abstract	Background Scientific papers increasingly put forward scientific-based policy recommendations (SPRs) as a means of closing the circle of science, policy and practice. Assessing the quality of such SPRs is crucial, especially within the context of a systematic review. Here, we present ECR-P (Evidence Communication Rules for Policy)—a critical appraisal tool that we have developed, which can be used in assessing not only the quality of SPRs but also the quality of their evidence base and how effectively these have both been communicated. Methods The rationale behind ECR-P centres on three dimensions of quality; two are the well-established concepts of internal and external validity. Here, we introduce a third—evidence communication—encompassing both evidence veracity and quality of communication. Elements of the three dimensions of quality are considered within the context of the five rules of evidence communication. These are as follows: inform, not persuade; offer balance, not false balance; disclose uncertainties; state evidence quality and pre-empt misunderstandings. Results Development of ECR-P has been carried out by an interdisciplinary team and was piloted with a systematic review reported more fully elsewhere. ECR-P comprises a set of preliminary considerations which capture key aspects for the assessment, leading on to the main tool whose structure is domain-based, each domain mapping to one of the five rules of evidence communication. The domains include 25 signalling questions designed to obtain essential information for the critical appraisal. The questions focus on either the study’s evidence or the policy recommendations. Domain-based judgement is derived from responses to the signalling questions and an accompanying algorithm, followed by an overall quality judgement. Conclusions ECR-P has been designed to provide a standardised and transparent approach to assess the quality and communication of SPRs and their evidence base. The tool, which could be applied across all scientific fields, has been developed to fit primarily with the systematic reviewing process but could also serve as a stand-alone tool. Besides review assessors, it can also be used by policymakers, researchers, peer reviewers, editors and any other stakeholders interested in evidence-based policymaking and high-quality evidence communication. We encourage further independent testing of the tool in real-world evidence-based research.
Related Links	https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s13643-025-02757-8.pdf
Ending Page	9
Page Count	9
Starting Page	1
File Format	HTM / HTML
ISSN	20464053
DOI	10.1186/s13643-025-02757-8
Journal	Systematic Reviews
Issue Number	1
Volume Number	14
Language	English
Publisher	BioMed Central
Publisher Date	2025-01-13
Access Restriction	Open
Subject Keyword	Medicine Public Health Biomedicine Statistics for Life Sciences Health Sciences Critical appraisal Quality assessment Risk of bias tool Policy recommendations Policymaking Medicine/Public Health
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Medicine
Journal Impact Factor	6.3/2023
5-Year Journal Impact Factor	4.5/2023

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

The Evidence Project risk of bias tool: assessing study rigor for both randomized and non-randomized intervention studies

Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools

Critical appraisal in rapid systematic reviews of COVID-19 studies: implementation of the Quality Criteria Checklist (QCC)

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Evaluation of the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials: focus groups, online survey, proposed recommendations and their implementation

Application of weighting methods for presenting risk-of-bias assessments in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies

Methodological review of NMA bias concepts provides groundwork for the development of a list of concepts for potential inclusion in a new risk of bias tool for network meta-analysis (RoB NMA Tool)

A proposed framework for developing quality assessment tools

Risk of bias assessment of sequence generation: a study of 100 systematic reviews of trials

Evidence Communication Rules for Policy (ECR-P) critical appraisal tool

Similar Documents

The Evidence Project risk of bias tool: assessing study rigor for both randomized and non-randomized intervention studies

Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools

Critical appraisal in rapid systematic reviews of COVID-19 studies: implementation of the Quality Criteria Checklist (QCC)

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Evaluation of the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials: focus groups, online survey, proposed recommendations and their implementation

Application of weighting methods for presenting risk-of-bias assessments in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies

Methodological review of NMA bias concepts provides groundwork for the development of a list of concepts for potential inclusion in a new risk of bias tool for network meta-analysis (RoB NMA Tool)

A proposed framework for developing quality assessment tools

Risk of bias assessment of sequence generation: a study of 100 systematic reviews of trials

Evidence Communication Rules for Policy (ECR-P) critical appraisal tool