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

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.

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.

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.

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.