Trial reportTrials2015
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.
Trial report in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02022631 (Comparison Between Standard and New Alternative Formats of the Summary-of-Findings Tables in Cochrane Review Users. A Non-inferiority Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Comparison Between Standard and New Alternative Formats of the Summary-of-Findings Tables in Cochrane Review Users. A Non-inferiority Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Public health deworming programmes for soil-transmitted helminths in children living in endemic areas.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- School-based interventions for preventing HIV, sexually transmitted infections, and pregnancy in adolescents.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Deworming drugs for soil-transmitted intestinal worms in children: effects on nutritional indicators, haemoglobin, and school performance.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Comparative Analysis of Expert, Clinician, and Health Care User Interactions With Summary of Findings Tables: Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Tool to assess recognition and understanding of elements in Summary of Findings Table for health evidence synthesis: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Plain Language vs Standard Format for Youth Understanding of COVID-19 Recommendations: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA pediatrics · 2023Article
- Article
- High quality (certainty) evidence changes less often than low-quality evidence, but the magnitude of effect size does not systematically differ between studies with low versus high-quality evidence.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2022Article
- Comparing the usability of the World Health Organization's conventional tuberculosis guidelines to the eTB recommendations map: A two-arm superiority randomised controlled trial.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- Interactive Visual Displays for Interpreting the Results of Clinical Trials: Formative Evaluation With Case Vignettes.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic 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/
designWe 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).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.