How do I build a one-page evidence brief on winter respiratory risk for a committee?

Build the brief by searching PubMed and Europe PMC for systematic reviews and primary studies, checking each key citation's Crossmark record, then ranking sources by evidence type and flagging retractions or corrections.

1. Plan the search before running it. Define the question, the sources you will search, and the search strategy in advance, following the planning and documentation steps described in the Cochrane Handbook's chapter on searching for and selecting studies. Expected result: a written search plan you can reproduce and report to the committee.
2. Run fielded searches in PubMed and Europe PMC. PubMed supports field tags, phrase searching, filters, and Advanced Search; Europe PMC supports keyword and fielded searches across life-science literature, grants, preprints, citations, and references. Expected result: a record set you can screen for systematic reviews and primary studies on winter respiratory risk.
3. Screen records by evidence type. Keep systematic reviews and primary studies, and note the study design for each retained item so the ranking step has a basis. Expected result: a shortlist labeled by design.
4. Check each key citation's Crossmark status. Crossmark gives readers a publisher-maintained record for updates such as corrections, retractions, and other changes to a scholarly work. Expected result: each key citation marked as current, corrected, or retracted.
5. Rank the shortlist by evidence type and annotate status. Place systematic reviews above primary studies, and mark any corrected or retracted item next to its entry. Expected result: a ranked list with status notes visible at a glance.
6. State a confidence level for each ranked source and for the brief's overall conclusion. Tie each level to the evidence type and to the Crossmark status you recorded. Expected result: a one-page brief the committee can read with the ranking and status notes in view.

If a Crossmark check returns no update record or an ambiguous result, treat that citation's status as unresolved and verify it against the publisher's record before the committee meeting.