Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 63, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 620-626

  Rosenbaum, Sarah E ^a   Glenton, Claire ^b   Oxman, Andrew D ^a  

^a NORWEGIAN KNOWLEDGE CENTRE FOR THE HEALTH SERVICES   (Norway)

^b SINTEF   (Norway)

Author keywords

Health numeracy; Information design; Knowledge translation; Randomized controlled trial; Risk communication; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

COCHRANE LIBRARY; COMPREHENSION; EVALUATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MATHEMATICAL PARAMETERS; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SATISFACTION; SUMMARY OF FINDINGS TABLE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONSUMER; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STANDARD; TIME;

COMPREHENSION; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; DATA DISPLAY; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 77952470511     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.014     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Haynes B. Of studies, syntheses, synopses, summaries, and systems: the "5S" evolution of information services for evidence-based healthcare decisions. EBM Nursing 2007;10:6-7.
2. PLoS Medicine Editors. The impact of open access upon public health. PLoS Med 2006;3:-252.
3. Novack L, Jotkowitz A, Knyazer B, Novack V. Evidence-based medicine: assessment of knowledge of basic epidemiological and research methods among medical doctors. Postgrad Med J 2006;82:817-22.
4. Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ. More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med 1990;113:69-76.
5. Mulrow CD, Thacker SB, Pugh JA. A proposal for more informative abstracts of review articles. Ann Intern Med 1988;108:613-5.
6. Sollaci LB, Pereira MG. The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey. J Med Libr Assoc 2004;92:364-7.
7. Groves T, Godlee F. Innovations in publishing BMJ research. BMJ 2008;337:a3123.
8. Delamothe T, Mullner M, Smith R. Pleasing both authors and readers. Summary of electronic responses. BMJ 1999;319:580.
9. ACP Journal Club. Clinical synopses. Quality-assessed, clinically rated original studies and reviews from over 130 clinical journals. Available at: http://www.acpjc.org. Accessed Oct 29, 2008.
10. Evidence-based medicine for primary care and internal medicine. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd; 2008. Available at. http://ebm.bmj.com/. Accessed Oct 29, 2008.
11. Evidence-based mental health. BMJ Accessed Oct 29, 2008. Publishing Group Ltd; 2008. Available at: http://ebmh.bmj.com/.
12. Evidence-based nursing. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd; 2008. Available at: http://ebn.bmj.com/. Accessed Oct 29, 2008.
13. Clinical evidence.BMJ Publishing Group Ltd; 2008.Available at: http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/index.jsp . Accessed Oct 29, 2008.
14. UpToDate. Available at: http://www.uptodate.com. Accessed Oct 29, 2008.
15. O'Connor AM, Stacey D, Entwistle V, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Rovner D, Holmes-Rovner M, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;2:CD001431.
16. Edwards AG, Evans R, Dundon J, Haigh S, Hood K, Elwyn GJ. Personalized risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;4: CD001865.
17. Trevena LJ, Davey HM, Barratt A, Butow P, Caldwell P. A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. J Eval Clin Pract 2006;12:13-23.
18. Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making 2007;27:696-713.
19. Barry HC, Ebell MH, Shaughnessy AF, Slawson DC, Nietzke F. Family physicians' use of medical abstracts to guide decision making: style or substance? J Am Board Fam Pract 2001;14:437-42.
20. Hartley J. Current findings from research on structured abstracts. [literature review]. J Med Libr Assoc 2004;92:368-71.
21. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available at: http://www.cochrane.org. Accessed Oct 29, 2008
22. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al.GRADE: anemerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924-6.
23. GRADEWorking Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328:1490.
24. Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Nylund HK, Oxman AD. 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 [in this issue].
25. Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren JB. User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful summary of findings tables for Cochrane Reviews. JAmMed Inform Assoc 2006;13:608-18.
26. Davies K. The information-seeking behaviour of doctors: a review of the evidence. [review]. Health Info Libr J 2007;24:78-94.
27. Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Ebell MH, Bergus GR, Levy BT, Chambliss ML, et al. Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care. BMJ 1999;319:358-61.
28. Estrada C, Barnes V, Collins C, Byrd JC. Health literacy and numeracy. JAMA 1999;282:527.
29. Rao G. Physician numeracy: essential skills for practicing evidence-based medicine. Fam Med 2008;40:354-8.
30. Sheridan SL, Pignone M. Numeracy and the medical student's ability to interpret data. Eff Clin Pract 2002;5:35-40.
31. Godwin M, Seguin R. Critical appraisal skills of family physicians in Ontario, Canada. BMC Med Educ 2003;3:10.
32. Young JM,GlasziouP,Ward JE.General practitioners'self ratings of skills in evidence based medicine: validation study. BMJ 2002;324:950-1.
33. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier EK-M, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Assoc Psychol Sci 2008;8:53-96.
34. Lipkus IM,SamsaG,RimerBK.Generalperformanceon anumeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making 2001;21:37-44.
35. Ancker JS, Kaufman D. Rethinking health numeracy: a multidisciplinary literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007;14:713-21.
36. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2009. Available at: www.cochranehandbook.org.