↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
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
Published in
Trials, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0649-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alonso Carrasco-Labra, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Nancy Santesso, Ignacio Neumann, Reem A Mustafa, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Itziar Etxeandia Ikobaltzeta, Catherine De Stio, Lauren J McCullagh, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Joerg J Meerpohl, Per Olav Vandvik, Jan L Brozek, Elie A Akl, Patrick Bossuyt, Rachel Churchill, Claire Glenton, Sarah Rosenbaum, Peter Tugwell, Vivian Welch, Gordon Guyatt, Holger Schünemann

Abstract

Systematic reviews represent one of the most important tools for knowledge translation but users often struggle with understanding and interpreting their results. GRADE Summary-of-Findings tables have been developed to display results of systematic reviews in a concise and transparent manner. The current format of the Summary-of-Findings tables for presenting risks and quality of evidence improves understanding and assists users with finding key information from the systematic review. However, it has been suggested that additional methods to present risks and display results in the Summary-of-Findings tables are needed. We will conduct a non-inferiority parallel-armed randomized controlled trial to determine whether an alternative format to present risks and display Summary-of-Findings tables is not inferior compared to the current standard format. We will measure participant understanding, accessibility of the information, satisfaction, and preference for both formats. We will invite systematic review users to participate (that is clinicians, guideline developers, and researchers). The data collection process will be undertaken using the online 'Survey Monkey' system. For the primary outcome understanding, non-inferiority of the alternative format (Table A) to the current standard format (Table C) of Summary-of-Findings tables will be claimed if the upper limit of a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (for the difference of proportion of participants answering correctly a given question) excluded a difference in favor of the current format of more than 10%. This study represents an effort to provide systematic reviewers with additional options to display review results using Summary-of-Findings tables. In this way, review authors will have a variety of methods to present risks and more flexibility to choose the most appropriate table features to display (that is optional columns, risks expressions, complementary methods to display continuous outcomes, and so on). NCT02022631 (21 December 2013).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 71 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Professor 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 26 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Computer Science 4 5%
Psychology 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 27 37%