User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful Summary of Findings tables for Cochrane reviews
- PMID: 20434023
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.013
User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful Summary of Findings tables for Cochrane reviews
Abstract
Objective: To develop a Summary of Findings (SoF) table for use in Cochrane reviews that is understandable and useful for health professionals, acceptable to Cochrane Collaboration stakeholders, and feasible to implement.
Study design and setting: We gathered stakeholder feedback on the format and content of an SoF table from an advisory group of more than 50 participants and their constituencies through e-mail consultations. We conducted user tests using a think-aloud protocol method, collecting feedback from 21 health professionals and researchers in Norway and the UK. We analyzed the feedback, defined problem areas, and generated new solutions in brainstorming workshops.
Results: Stakeholders were concerned about precision in the data representation and about production feasibility. User testing revealed unexpected comprehension problems, mainly confusion about what the different numbers referred to (class reference). Resolving the tension between achieving table precision and table simplicity became the main focus of the working group.
Conclusion: User testing led to a table more useful and understandable for clinical audiences. We arrived at an SoF table that was acceptable to the stakeholders and in principle feasible to implement technically. Some challenges remain, including presenting continuous outcomes and technical/editorial implementation.
Similar articles
-
Assessing and presenting summaries of evidence in Cochrane Reviews.Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 23;2:81. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-81. Syst Rev. 2013. PMID: 24059250 Free PMC article.
-
Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jun;63(6):620-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.014. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010. PMID: 20434024 Clinical Trial.
-
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. Trials. 2015. PMID: 25873338 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Summaries of findings, descriptions of interventions, and information about adverse effects would make reviews more informative.J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Aug;59(8):770-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.12.011. Epub 2006 May 30. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006. PMID: 16828668 Review.
-
Methodological review showed correct absolute effect size estimates for time-to-event outcomes in less than one-third of cancer-related systematic reviews.J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Apr;108:1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.12.006. Epub 2018 Dec 10. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019. PMID: 30543910 Review.
Cited by
-
Who can you trust? A review of free online sources of "trustworthy" information about treatment effects for patients and the public.BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Feb 20;19(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s12911-019-0772-5. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019. PMID: 30786889 Free PMC article.
-
Assessing and presenting summaries of evidence in Cochrane Reviews.Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 23;2:81. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-81. Syst Rev. 2013. PMID: 24059250 Free PMC article.
-
Increasing the quantity and quality of searching for current best evidence to answer clinical questions: protocol and intervention design of the MacPLUS FS Factorial Randomized Controlled Trials.Implement Sci. 2014 Sep 20;9:125. doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0125-9. Implement Sci. 2014. PMID: 25239537 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
A Foundation for Patient-Centered Core Impact Sets: Key Learnings from Past and Existing Approaches.Patient. 2023 Jul;16(4):293-300. doi: 10.1007/s40271-023-00630-1. Epub 2023 May 19. Patient. 2023. PMID: 37204700
-
Identifying content to improve risk assessment communications within the Risk Profile: Literature reviews and focus groups with expert and non-expert stakeholders.PLoS One. 2022 Apr 11;17(4):e0266800. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266800. eCollection 2022. PLoS One. 2022. PMID: 35404989 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources