Abstract
Objectives
The current format of summary of findings (SoFs) tables for presenting effect estimates
and associated quality of evidence improve understanding and assist users finding
key information in systematic reviews. Users of SoF tables have demanded alternative
formats to express findings from systematic reviews.
Study Design and Setting
We conducted a randomized controlled trial among systematic review users to compare
the relative merits of a new format with the current formats of SoF tables regarding
understanding, accessibility of information, satisfaction, and preference. Our primary
goal was to show that the new format is not inferior to the current format.
Results
Of 390 potentially eligible subjects, 290 were randomized. Of seven items testing
understanding, three showed similar results, two showed small differences favoring
the new format, and two (understanding risk difference and quality of the evidence
associated with a treatment effect) showed large differences favoring the new format
[63% (95% confidence interval {CI}: 55, 71) and 62% (95% CI: 52, 71) more correct
answers, respectively]. Respondents rated information in the alternative format as
more accessible overall and preferred the new format over the current format.
Conclusions
While providing at least similar levels of understanding for some items and increased
understanding for others, users prefer the new format of SoF tables.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies.BMJ. 2008; 336: 1106-1110
- Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive.BMJ. 2008; 337: a744
- GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.BMJ. 2008; 336: 924-926
- What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians?.BMJ. 2008; 336: 995-998
- Incorporating considerations of resources use into grading recommendations.BMJ. 2008; 336: 1170-1173
- Going from evidence to recommendations.BMJ. 2008; 336: 1049-1051
- Letters, numbers, symbols and words: how to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations.CMAJ. 2003; 169: 677-680
- GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes.J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 158-172
- GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes.J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 173-183
- Symbols were superior to numbers for presenting strength of recommendations to health care consumers: a randomized trial.J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60: 1298-1305
- User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful summary of findings tables for Cochrane reviews.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 607-619
- Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 620-626
- Formatting modifications in GRADE evidence profiles improved guideline panelists comprehension and accessibility to information. A randomized trial.J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 65: 748-755
- Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement.JAMA. 2012; 308: 2594-2604
- Protocol: comparison between standard and new alternative formats of the summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane review users: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.Trials. 2015; 16: 164
- Probiotics for the prevention of pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; : CD004827
- Presenting the results of Cochrane systematic reviews to a consumer audience: a qualitative study.Med Decis Making. 2010; 30: 566-577
- Regression Modeling Strategies: with applications to linear, logistic regression, and survival analysis.Springer-Verlag, New York2001
- Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; : CD006776
- Communicating data about the benefits and harms of treatment: a randomized trial.Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155: 87-96
- A summary to communicate evidence from systematic reviews to the public improved understanding and accessibility of information: a randomized controlled trial.J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68: 182-190
Article info
Publication history
Published online: January 11, 2016
Accepted:
December 21,
2015
Footnotes
Funding: The Cochrane Methods Innovation Fund and GRADE Center at McMaster University funded this study. Neither of these institutions but only the investigators belonging to these institutions played a role in the planning, conducting, or publishing the study findings.
Conflict of interest: The authors of this trial declare no financial conflict of interest. However, most of them are members of the GRADE working group and the Cochrane Collaboration. H.J.S., G.G., and P.T. are convenors of Cochrane Methods Group. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Cochrane Collaboration or its registered entities, committees, or working groups.
Trial registration: NCT02022631 (clinicaltrials.gov).
Identification
Copyright
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
