Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Study protocol

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

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

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods/Design

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%.

Discussion

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).

Trials registration

NCT02022631 (21 December 2013)
Literature
1.
Sauerland S, Seiler CM. Role of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in evidence-based medicine. World J Surg. 2005;29(5):582–7.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Moat KA, Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Rottingen JA, Barnighausen T. Twelve myths about systematic reviews for health system policymaking rebutted. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(1):44–50.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Mazur DJ, Hickam DH. Patients’ interpretations of probability terms. J Gen Intern Med. 1991;6(3):237–40.CrossRefPubMed
4.
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):268–71.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):696–713.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Akl EA, Oxman AD, Herrin J, Vist GE, Terrenato I, Sperati F, et al. Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; Issue 3. Article number:CD006776. doi:006710.001002/14651858.CD14006776.pub14651852.
7.
Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, Glasziou P, Jaeschke R, Vist GE, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336(7653):1106–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Dellinger P, Schunemann H, Levy MM, Kunz R, et al. Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive. BMJ. 2008;337:a744.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Guyatt GH, 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(7650):924–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann HJ. What is 'quality of evidence' and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336(7651):995–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Jaeschke R, Helfand M, Liberati A, et al. Incorporating considerations of resources use into grading recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7654):1170–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
13.
Oxman AD. Summaries of findings in Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Collaboration Methods Group Newsl. 2004. p. 8–9.
14.
Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.CrossRefPubMed
15.
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):1298–305.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Nylund HK, Oxman AD. 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(6):607–19.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(6):620–6.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Vandvik PO, Santesso N, Akl EA, You J, Mulla S, Spencer FA, et al. Formatting modifications in GRADE evidence profiles improved guideline panelists comprehension and accessibility to information. A randomized trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(7):748–55.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ, Altman DG. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA. 2012;308(24):2594–604.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin JA, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346:e7586.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Johnston BC, Goldenberg JZ, Vandvik PO, Sun X, Guyatt GH. Probiotics for the prevention of pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; Issue 11. Article number: CD004827. doi:101002/14651858CD004827pub3.
22.
Hsieh FY, Bloch DA, Larsen MD. A simple method of sample size calculation for linear and logistic regression. Stat Med. 1998;17(14):1623–34.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Harrell FE. Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York: Springer; 2001.CrossRef
Metadata
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
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
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0649-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Trials 1/2015 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Peer-led healthy lifestyle program in supportive housing: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Pit excision with phenolisation of the sinus tract versus radical excision in sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease: study protocol for a single centre randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

The Community In-Reach and Care Transition (CIRACT) clinical and cost-effectiveness study: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

The LIPPSMAck POP (Lung Infection Prevention Post Surgery - Major Abdominal - with Pre-Operative Physiotherapy) trial: study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

Evaluating the effects of increasing physical activity to optimize rehabilitation outcomes in hospitalized older adults (MOVE Trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

SMART: physical activity and cerebral metabolism in older people: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial