Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 6 , Pages 607-619 , June 2010

User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful Summary of Findings tables for Cochrane reviews

  • Sarah E. Rosenbaum

      Affiliations

    • Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, PO Box 7004, St. Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +47-98256051; fax: +47-23255010.
    • ,
  • Claire Glenton

      Affiliations

    • Department of Global Health, Sintef, Oslo, Norway
    • ,
  • Hilde Kari Nylund

      Affiliations

    • Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, PO Box 7004, St. Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway
    • ,
  • Andrew D. Oxman

      Affiliations

    • Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, PO Box 7004, St. Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway

,Accepted 22 December 2009.

References 

  1. Coumou HC, Meijman FJ. How do primary care physicians seek answers to clinical questions? A literature review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94:55–60
  2. Gosling AS, Westbrook JI, Coiera E. Variation in the use of online clinical evidence: a qualitative analysis. Int J Med Inform [research]. 2003;69:1–16
  3. Grol R, Wensing M. What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Med J Aust. 2004;180(6 Suppl):57–60
  4. Green ML, Ruff TR. Why do residents fail to answer their clinical questions? A qualitative study of barriers to practicing evidence-based medicine. Acad Med. [research]. 2005;80(2):176–182
  5. Leung GM, Yu PL, Wong IO, Johnston JM, Tin KY. Incentives and barriers that influence clinical computerization in Hong Kong: a population-based physician survey. J Am Med Inform Assoc. [research]. 2003;10:201–212
  6. Ely JW, Osheroff J, Ebell M, Chambliss M, Vinson D, Stevemer J, et al. Obstacles to answering doctors' questions about patient care with evidence: qualitative study. BMJ. [research (qualitative study)]. 2002;324(7339):710
  7. Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper: papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses). BMJ. 1997;315(7109):672–675
  8. Sackett DL. Using evidence-based medicine to help physicians keep up-to-date. Serials: J Serials Community. [research—survey/poll]. 1996;9(2):178–181
  9. Glasziou P, Haynes B. The paths from research to improved health outcomes. Evid Based Nurs. 2005;8(2):36–38
  10. Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Oxman A. Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:618–624
  11. Haynes B. Of studies, syntheses, synopses, summaries, and systems: the "5S" evolution of information services for evidence-based healthcare decisions. Evidence Based Nurs. [EBN notebook]. 2007;10:6–7
  12. Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ. More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(1):69–76
  13. ACP Journal Club. Clinical synopses. Quality-assessed, clinically rated original studies and reviews from over 130 clinical journals. Available at: http://www.acpjc.org. Accessed Dec 30, 2008.
  14. Clinical Evidence. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd; Available at: http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/index.jsp. Accessed Dec 30, 2008.
  15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med.[peer-reviewed]. 2009;6(7):e1000097
  16. Hartley J. Clarifying the abstracts of systematic literature reviews. Bull Med Libr Assoc. [literature review]. 2000;88(4):332–337
  17. Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(1):37–44
  18. Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:696–713
  19. Mazur DJ, Merz JF. How age, outcome severity, and scale influence general medicine clinic patients' interpretations of verbal probability terms. J Gen Intern Med. 1994;9(5):268–271
  20. Mazur DJ, Hickam DH. Patients' interpretations of probability terms. J Gen Intern Med. 1991;6(3):237–240
  21. Gurmankin AD, Baron J, Armstrong K. The effect of numerical statements of risk on trust and comfort with hypothetical physician risk communication. Med Decis Making. 2004;24(3):265–271
  22. Glenton C, Underland V, Kho M, Pennick V, Oxman AD. Summaries of findings, descriptions of interventions, and information about adverse effects would make reviews more informative. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:770–778
  23. GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490
  24. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–926
  25. Oxman AD. Summaries of findings in Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Collaboration Methods Group Newsl. 2004;8–9Sect
  26. Clarke M, Hopewell S, Juszczak E, Eisinga A, Kjeldstrom M. Compression stockings for preventing deep vein thrombosis in airline passengers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD004002
  27. Morville P. User Experience Design [website]: Sematic Studios LLC;2004 [updated June 21, 2004–April 09, 2008]; [honeycomb model]. Available at: http://www.semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000029.php.
  28. Wills CE, Holmes-Rovner M. Patient comprehension of information for shared treatment decision making: state of the art and future directions. Patient Educ Couns. 2003;50(3):285–290
  29. Trevena LJ, Davey HM, Barratt A, Butow P, Caldwell P. A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12(1):13–23
  30. Gigerenzer G, Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ. [education and debate]. 2003;327(7417):741
  31. Paling J. Strategies to help patients understand risks. BMJ. 2003;327(7417):745–748
  32. Akl EA, Maroun N, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Alonso-Coello P, Vist GE, et al. Symbols were superior to numbers for presenting strength of recommendations to health care consumers: a randomized trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(12):1298–1305
  33. Schunemann HJ, Best D, Vist G, Oxman AD, Group GW. Letters, numbers, symbols and words: how to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations. CMAJ. 2003;169(7):677–680
  34. Reyna VF. A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(6):850–865
  35. Reyna VF. How people make decisions that involve risk. A dual-processes approach. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2004;13(2):60–66
  36. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learn Indiv Diff. [theory]. 2007;18(1):89–107
  37. Lloyd FJ, Reyna VF. A web exercise in evidence-based medicine using cognitive theory. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(2):94–99
  38. Brainerd CJ, Reyna VF. Fuzzy-trace theory: dual processes in memory, reasoning, and cognitive neuroscience. Adv Child Dev Behav. [theory]. 2001;28:41–100
  39. Jacobs JE, Klaczynski PA. The development of judgment and decision making during childhood and adolescence. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2002;11(4):145–149
  40. Reyna VF, Ellis SC. Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in children's risky decision making. Psychol Sci. 1994;5(5):275–279
  41. Reyna VF, Lloyd FJ. Physician decision making and cardiac risk: effects of knowledge, risk perception, risk tolerance, and fuzzy processing. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2006;12(3):179–195
  42. In:  Higgins JPT,  Green S editor. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2009;Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org
  43. Tufte ER. Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 1990;
  44. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews?. BMJ. 2008;336(7659):1472–1474
  45. Schünemann H, Oxman AD, Vist G, Higgens JP, Glasziou P, Guyatt G. Chapter 11: presenting results and ‘summary of findings’ tables. In:  Higgens JP,  Green S editor. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008;
  46. GRADEpro—Information Management System (IMS). [07 January 2009]; GRADEpro (GRADEprofiler) is the software used to create Summary of Findings (SoF) tables in Cochrane systematic reviews. Software download and technical information, support, feedback and other resources. Available at: http://www.cc-ims.net/revman/gradepro/gradepro. Accessed Jan 07, 2009

PII: S0895-4356(10)00024-7

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.013

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 6 , Pages 607-619 , June 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution