Highlights
- •New components may improve how summary of findings (SoF) tables convey information.
- •Noninferiority randomized controlled trial (RCT) identifies facilitators of understanding.
- •Number needed to treat (NNT) and narrative summaries improve user satisfaction.
- •Tailor included information in SoF tables to end user.
Abstract
Objectives
Study Design and Setting
Results
Conclusion
Keywords
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 EpidemiologyReferences
- GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables—binary outcomes.J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 158-172
- Chapter 11: presenting results and ‘Summary of findings’ tables.in: Higgins J.P.T.G.S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0, 2011 (Available at)https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_11/11_presenting_results_and_summary_of_findings_tables.htmDate accessed: February 3, 2013
- Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0.(Available at)
- Interactive Summary of Findings tables: the way to present and understand results of systematic reviews.JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Rep. 2019; 17: 259-260
- Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Lancet. 2020; 395: 1973-1987
- European commission initiative on breast cancer contributor group. Methods for development of the European commission initiative on breast cancer guidelines: recommendations in the era of guideline transparency.Ann Intern Med. 2019; 171: 273-280
- Routine heparin for patients with cancer? One answer, more questions.N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 661-662
- Eradication of hepatitis C virus infection and the development of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of observational studies.Ann Intern Med. 2013; 158: 329-337
- Summary of findings tables for communicating key findings of systematic reviews.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; MR000044
- Improving GRADE evidence tables part 1: a randomized trial shows improved understanding of content in summary of findings tables with a new format.J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 74: 7-18
- 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
- Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 620-626
- Grading the strength of a body of evidence when assessing health care interventions: an EPC update.J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68: 1312-1324
- Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement.JAMA. 2012; 308: 2594-2604
- Two alternatives versus the standard Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) summary of findings (SoF) tables to improve understanding in the presentation of systematic review results: a three-arm, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.BMJ Open. 2018; 8: e015623
- Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for persons with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Ann Intern Med. 2014; 160: 774-784
- Comparison between the standard and a new alternative format of the Summary-of-Findings tables in Cochrane review users: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Trials. 2015; 16: 164
- Symbols were superior to numbers for presenting strength of recommendations to health care consumers: a randomized trial.J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60: 1298-1305
- Formatting modifications in GRADE evidence profiles improved guideline panelists comprehension and accessibility to information. A randomized trial.J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 65: 748-755
- Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis.J Am Stat Assoc. 1952; 47: 583-621
- Multiple comparisons among means.J Am Stat Assoc. 1961; 56: 52-64
Article info
Publication history
Footnotes
The authors of this manuscript are responsible for its content. Statements in the manuscript should not be construed as endorsement by the Agency for Health care Research Quality (AHRQ) or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Declarations of interest: None.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors, but was funded internally through the McMaster Michael G. DeGroote and McMaster GRADE Centres. Stephanie Chang was employed by the AHRQ when the study was designed, conducted, and drafts were prepared.
Declaration of interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Author Contributions: Rebecca L. Morgan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing–Original draft. Juan José Yepes-Nuñez: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Visualization, Writing–Review & editing. Joycelyn Ewusie: Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing–Original draft. Lawrence Mbuagbaw: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing–Review & editing. Stephanie Chang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing–Review & editing. Tejan Baldeh: Investigation. Susanne Hempel: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing–Review & editing. Mark Helfand: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing–Review & editing. Paul Shekelle: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing–Review & editing. Timothy J. Wilt: Writing–Review & editing. Holger J. Schünemann: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Funding, Writing–Review & editing.
