Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29362242›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

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

Registry-linked trialAbstract readEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02813941 (Two Alternatives Versus Usual GRADE-SoF Tables to Improve Understanding in the Presentation of Systematic Review Results), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02813941 nacompletednot on this map

Two Alternatives Versus Usual GRADE-SoF Tables to Improve Understanding in the Presentation of Systematic Review Results: A Three-arm, Randomized, Controlled, Noninferiority Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorMcMaster UniversityRan2018 to 2018Enrolled178ConditionsResearch ReportArmsCurrent GRADE SoF table, Alternative GRADE SoF table, EPC SoF table
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Juan José Yepes-NuñezDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9912-0031
Rebecca L MorganDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Lawrence MbuagbawDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Alonso Carrasco-LabraDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Stephanie ChangAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Susanne HempelSouthern California Evidence-based Practice Center, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, USA.
Paul ShekelleSouthern California Evidence-based Practice Center, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, USA.
Mark HelfandDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Tejan BaldehDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Holger J SchünemannDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSummary 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.

methodsThe 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.

Indexed as

ComprehensionEvidence-Based MedicineInformation DisseminationResearch ReportHumansModels, StatisticalOntarioResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicAHRQGRADErandomized controlled trialssummary of finding tablessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29362242
PMCPMC5786134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.