Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jan 23;8(1):e015623.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015623.

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  1   2 , Rebecca L Morgan  1 , Lawrence Mbuagbaw  1 , Alonso Carrasco-Labra  1 , Stephanie Chang  3 , Susanne Hempel  4 , Paul Shekelle  4 , Mark Helfand  5 , Tejan Baldeh  1 , Holger J Schünemann  1   6
Affiliations

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 et al. BMJ Open. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow chart. R, randomisation; SoF, summary of findings.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

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 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    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 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    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 - DOI - PubMed
    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 - DOI - PubMed
    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 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources