Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 17, 2026

A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
Published on: January 12, 2018
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 17: Dealing with insufficient research evidence
Andrew D Oxman1, John N Lavis, Atle Fretheim
1Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, P.O. Box 7004, St. Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway. oxman@online.no
Abstract:
This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. In this article, we address the issue of decision making in situations in which there is insufficient evidence at hand. Policymakers often have insufficient evidence to know with certainty what the impacts of a health policy or programme option will be, but they must still make decisions. We suggest four questions that can be considered when there may be insufficient evidence to be confident about the impacts of implementing an option. These are: 1. Is there a systematic review of the impacts of the option? 2. Has inconclusive evidence been misinterpreted as evidence of no effect? 3. Is it possible to be confident about a decision despite a lack of evidence? 4. Is the option potentially harmful, ineffective or not worth the cost?
Related Concept Videos
Statistical Software for Data Analysis and Clinical Trials
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
Overview of Biostatistics in Health Sciences
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial evaluating a...
Steps in Outbreak Investigation
