New Alternative Formats vs Standard of SoF Tables. Non-inferiority Controlled Trial

Comparison Between Standard and New Alternative Formats of the Summary-of-Findings Tables in Cochrane Review Users. A Non-inferiority Randomized Controlled Trial

The investigators will conduct a parallel two-armed, non-inferiority randomized trial comparing new alternative formats of summary of findings tables (SoF) tables with current formats. The investigators will contact Cochrane review users by email and will ask them to fill a questionnaire developed using the "Survey Monkey" online system. The survey will include questions about baseline information (demographic characteristics, background, number of visits to the Cochrane Library, familiarity with the GRADE system, etc.). Then, participants will be stratified (health professional, guideline developer, researcher) and randomly assigned to one of the two SoF table formats, either the alternative (Table A) or the current one (Table C). Participants will be asked to answer questions to determine understanding, accessibility, and satisfaction with the formats to which they were randomized. Finally, the investigators will show them the table format to which they were not initially allocated in order to test their preference for either one.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: GRADE Approach; Summary of Findings Table; Cochrane Collaboration
• Intervention / Treatment: Other: Alternative summary of findings table format; Other: Current summary of findings table format

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 290
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• Canada
  • Ontario
    • Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4K1
      • McMaster University

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: ADULT; OLDER_ADULT; CHILD
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Genders Eligible for Study: All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Cochrane review users
• Authors of systematic reviews
• Health professionals
• Guideline developers
• Researchers

Exclusion Criteria:

-

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: OTHER
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Interventional Model: PARALLEL
• Masking: TRIPLE

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
EXPERIMENTAL: Alternative SoF; Investigators will compare one SoF table with alternative formats (Table A) against one SoF table with the current formats (Table B). In both tables, the clinical question in terms of patients and setting, intervention, comparator, and outcomes informed by the tables, and the complementary information included as footnotes will be the same. The only differences between the current and alternative SoF table formats will be different methods to either show the same data in a different way or to provide complementary data to the one showed in the current format (i.e. supplementary data as risk difference).	Other: Alternative summary of findings table format; Investigators will compare one SoF table with alternative formats (Table A) against one SoF table with the current formats (Table B). In both tables, the clinical question in terms of patients and setting, intervention, comparator, and outcomes informed by the tables, and the complementary information included as footnotes will be the same. The only differences between the current and alternative SoF table formats will be different methods to either show the same data in a different way or to provide complementary data to the one showed in the current format (i.e. supplementary data as risk difference).
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR: Current SoF; Investigators will compare one SoF table with alternative formats (Table A) against one SoF table with the current formats (Table B). In both tables, the clinical question in terms of patients and setting, intervention, comparator, and outcomes informed by the tables, and the complementary information included as footnotes will be the same. The only differences between the current and alternative SoF table formats will be different methods to either show the same data in a different way or to provide complementary data to the one showed in the current format (i.e. supplementary data as risk difference).	Other: Current summary of findings table format; Investigators will compare one SoF table with alternative formats (Table A) against one SoF table with the current formats (Table B). In both tables, the clinical question in terms of patients and setting, intervention, comparator, and outcomes informed by the tables, and the complementary information included as footnotes will be the same. The only differences between the current and alternative SoF table formats will be different methods to either show the same data in a different way or to provide complementary data to the one showed in the current format (i.e. supplementary data as risk difference).

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Understanding of key findings	Investigators will frame multiple-choice questions about key concepts in the table with five response alternatives for each question and only one correct answer. Then, investigators will compare the proportion of correct answers between groups per question	30 minutes

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Accessibility of information	This outcome will consider 3 domains: (1) how easy is to find critical information in the table, (2) how easy is to understand the information, and (3) whether the information is presented in a way that is helpful for decision-making. These three domains will be measured presenting to participants three statements to which they have to indicate the degree of agreement: "It was easy to find the information about the effects", "It was easy to understand the information", and "The information is presented in a way that would help me make a decision" using a 7-point Likert scale (1= I strongly disagree, 2= I disagree, 3= I somewhat disagree, 4= Not sure, 5= I somewhat agree, 6= I agree, and 7= I strongly agree). The outcome overall accessibility of information will be obtained as the average of responses for each domain, per participant.	30 minutes
Overall satisfaction	It will be measured using a 7-point Likert scale with 3 anchors: 1= strongly dissatisfied, 4= neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 7= strongly satisfied, and it will be treated as a continuous outcome. Investigators will compare the means per group.	30 minutes
Preference	This outcome taps the question: Between alternative (Table A) and current format (Table B) of SoF table, "which table does the user prefer?" It will be measured using a 5-point Likert scale (1= strongly prefer table B, 2= I prefer table B, 3= Both table A and B are good to me, 4= I prefer table A, 5= I strongly prefer table A), and it will be treated as continuous outcome. Investigators will describe the data obtained in each group. Other questions related to participants' preference for each alternative item will be included.	30 minutes

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: McMaster University
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Holger Schünemann, MD, MSc, PhD, McMaster University; Study Director: Alonso Carrasco-Labra, DDS, MSc, McMaster University

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Santesso N, Neumann I, Mustafa RA, Mbuagbaw L, Etxeandia Ikobaltzeta I, De Stio C, McCullagh LJ, Alonso-Coello P, Meerpohl JJ, Vandvik PO, Brozek JL, Akl EA, Bossuyt P, Churchill R, Glenton C, Rosenbaum S, Tugwell P, Welch V, Garner P, Guyatt G, Schunemann HJ. 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 Jun;74:7-18. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.12.007. Epub 2016 Jan 11.
• Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Santesso N, Neumann I, Mustafa RA, Mbuagbaw L, Ikobaltzeta IE, De Stio C, McCullagh LJ, Alonso-Coello P, Meerpohl JJ, Vandvik PO, Brozek JL, Akl EA, Bossuyt P, Churchill R, Glenton C, Rosenbaum S, Tugwell P, Welch V, Guyatt G, Schunemann H. 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 Apr 16;16:164. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0649-6.

Helpful Links

• Related Info
• Related Info

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start: December 1, 2013
• Primary Completion (ACTUAL): December 1, 2014
• Study Completion (ACTUAL): December 1, 2014

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: December 13, 2013
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: December 21, 2013
• First Posted (ESTIMATE): December 30, 2013

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (ACTUAL): December 13, 2021
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: December 9, 2021
• Last Verified: December 1, 2021

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Other Study ID Numbers: MIF_aim1RCT1

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO