(Research Action Digest And Review)
The final COVID-19 RADAR from Public Health Suffolk: Radar 52 (5 April). If you have issues accessing the PDF and its content, or would like it in a different format, please contact PHSpecialistC19Centre@suffolk.gov.uk
Public Health Suffolk published RADAR weekly for one year. The RADAR:
- summarised COVID-19 related research evidence, published in the previous week, that is relevant to the Suffolk system,
- made recommendations for consideration, and
- aimed to ensure research evidence is rapidly disseminated and turned into local action.
Our approach has been to include "need to know" research and not "nice to know". We have not been including research specific to NHS healthcare as this is covered elsewhere, including nationally.
Key sources of information included (but are not limited to) the following peer-reviewed journals and websites:
- journals: BMJ, Lancet, JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), New England Journal of Medicine
- websites: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Cambridge University, Johns Hopkins, Imperial College London
The findings were summarised in the linked PDF and themed by subject and topic area e.g. Adult and Community Services, Children and Young People, Public Health, etc.
Readers were encouraged to consider the evidence with colleagues. If there was agreement that this a priority and there were resources to implement the actions, Public Health Suffolk worked with readers to support them to get the relevant research into practice so that we could make a real difference collectively.
Each article we include has been given a grading level based on GRADE. This is an internationally recognised grading system used by the American Medical Association and Cochrane Library for consistency in grading evidence. Articles are graded for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation:
Quality of evidence: definitions
- High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
- Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
- Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
- Very low quality: any estimate of effect is very uncertain.
Strength of recommendations: definitions
- Strong: the desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh the undesirable effects, or clearly do not, guideline panels offer strong recommendations.
- Weak: low quality evidence or evidence that suggests desirable and undesirable effects are closely balanced.