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

Juan José Yepes-Nuñez, Rebecca L Morgan, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Alonso Carrasco-Labra, Stephanie Chang, Susanne Hempel, Paul Shekelle, Mark Helfand, Tejan Baldeh, Holger J Schünemann, Juan José Yepes-Nuñez, Rebecca L Morgan, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Alonso Carrasco-Labra, Stephanie Chang, Susanne Hempel, Paul Shekelle, Mark Helfand, Tejan Baldeh, Holger J Schünemann

Abstract

Objective: Summary of findings (SoF) tables present results of systematic reviews in a concise and explicit format. Adopted by many review groups including the Cochrane Collaboration and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), optimal understanding of SoF table may be influenced by the type of information being conveyed and objectives or preferences of the end user. This study aims to compare three SoF table formats in terms of understanding, accessibility, satisfaction and preference with systematic review users.

Methods: The primary objective of this three-arm randomised controlled non-inferiority trial is to investigate whether an alternative Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) SoF table or Evidence-based Practice Center SoF table is non-inferior to the current GRADE SoF table in the understanding of the information presented to systematic review users, particularly for descriptive findings. Researchers, clinical practice guideline developers, policy-makers or knowledge transfer professionals will be recruited. Data will be collected electronically at baseline and after randomisation. Non-inferiority would be declared if the difference in the proportion of participants who understand the information displayed in the alternative SoF table is 10% or less.

Ethics and dissemination: The Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board reviewed this protocol. The findings from this study will be disseminated through a publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Trial registration number: NCT02813941.

Keywords: AHRQ; GRADE; randomized controlled trials; summary of finding tables; systematic review.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow chart. R, randomisation; SoF, summary of findings.

References

    1. Akl EA, Oxman AD, Herrin J, et al. . Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011:CD006776 10.1002/14651858.CD006776.pub2
    1. Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Santesso N, et al. . 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 10.1186/s13063-015-0649-6
    1. Vandvik PO, Santesso N, Akl EA, et al. . Formatting modifications in GRADE evidence profiles improved guideline panelists comprehension and accessibility to information. A randomized trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:748–55. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.013
    1. Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Nylund HK, et al. . User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful summary of findings tables for cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:607–19. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.013
    1. 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;63:620–6. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.014
    1. Akl EA, Maroun N, Guyatt G, et al. . Symbols were superior to numbers for presenting strength of recommendations to health care consumers: a randomized trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:1298–305. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.011
    1. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. . GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:383–94. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026
    1. Robinson KA, Whitlock EP, O’Neil ME, et al. . Integration of existing systematic reviews. research white paper (prepared by the scientific resource center under contract no. 290-2012-00004-C). AHRQ Publication No. 14-EHC016-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2014.
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JPT, et al. . Chapter 11: Presenting results and ‘summary of findings’ tables : Higgins JPT, Green S, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011): The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
    1. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, et al. . SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ 2013;346:e7586 10.1136/bmj.e7586
    1. SurveyMonkey Inc. SurveyMonkey: free online survey software and questionnaire tool [Internet]. 2017. (cited 11 Nov 2017).
    1. Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Ansari MT, et al. . Grading the strength of a body of evidence when assessing health care interventions: an EPC update. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:1312–24. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.023
    1. Feltner C, Jones CD, Cene CW, et al. . Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for people with heart failure. AHRQ comparative effectiveness reviews. Rockville, MD, 2014.
    1. Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Santesso N, et al. . 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. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.12.007
    1. StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 12. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP, 2011.
    1. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, et al. . Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA 2012;308:2594–604. 10.1001/jama.2012.87802
    1. Bender R, Lange S. Adjusting for multiple testing--when and how? J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:343–9. 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00314-0
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, et al. . GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:158–72. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.012
    1. World Medical Organization. Declaration of Helsinki. BMJ 1996;313:1448–9.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다