Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37872203›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Tool to assess recognition and understanding of elements in Summary of Findings Table for health evidence synthesis: a cross-sectional study.

Jakov Matas, Ružica Tokalić, Daniel García-Costa, Emilia López-Iñesta, Elena Álvarez-García, Francisco Grimaldo, Ana Marušić

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Jakov MatasDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, 21000, Split, Croatia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2288-8170
Ružica TokalićDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, 21000, Split, Croatia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0037-4905
Daniel García-CostaComputer Science Department, Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8939-8451
Emilia López-IñestaDepartment of Didactics of Mathematics, Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1325-2501
Elena Álvarez-GarcíaComputer Science Department, Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6499-4871
Francisco GrimaldoComputer Science Department, Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1357-7170
Ana MarušićDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, 21000, Split, Croatia. ana.marusic@mefst.hr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6272-0917

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

of Findings (SoF) tables concisely present the main findings of evidence synthesis of health evidence, but how users navigate it to understand and interpret the presented information is not clear. We quantified the interaction of medical students with an SoF table while answering a knowledge quiz. Read&Learn tool was used to measure the number of target and non-target table cells visited for each question and the time spent on these cells. Students positively identified target elements for quiz questions and answered simpler questions, but struggled with critical thinking and understanding study outcomes. The question on outcomes with the largest improvement post-intervention had the fewest correct answers, the longest interaction with table cells and the most opened cells before answering. Students spent a median of 72% of the time reading target table cells. A heatmap of the interactions showed that they were mostly answer-oriented. Further development of the tool and metrics is needed to use the tool and the metrics to study the cognitive processes during the assessment of health evidence.

Indexed as

Students, MedicalThinkingCross-Sectional StudiesHumansLearning

Identifiers

PMID37872203
PMCPMC10593927

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.