Summary of findings tables for communicating key findings of systematic reviews

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Volumn 2017, Issue 2, 2017, Pages

  Conway, Aislinn ^a   Clarke, Mike J ^b   Treweek, Shaun ^c   Schünemann, Holger ^d   Santesso, Nancy ^d   Morgan, Rebecca L ^e   Darragh, Mark ^b   Maguire, Lisa K ^f   Devane, Declan ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

^b QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^d MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^e MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^f QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; MALE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

EID: 85053840685     PISSN: 14651858     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000044     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Agoritsas T, Heen AF, Brandt L, Alonso-Coello P, Kristiansen A, Akl EA, et al. Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: the pace quickens. BMJ 2015;350:g7624. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g7624]
2. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?. PLoS Medicine 2010;7(9):e1000326. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326]
3. Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Santesso N, Neumann I, Mustafa RA, Mbuagbaw L, 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. [DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-0649-6]
4. Chan RJ, Webster J, Marquart L. Information interventions for orienting patients and their carers to cancer care facilities. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008273.pub2]
5. Chandler J, Churchill R, Higgins J, Lasserson T, Tovey D. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) Standards for the reporting of Plain language summaries in new Cochrane Intervention Reviews. Booklet Version 1. http://editorial-unit.cochrane.org/sites/editorial-unit.cochrane.org/files/uploads/PLSBooklet2.pdf 2013.
6. Cochrane. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. www.cochranelibrary.com/cochrane-database-of-systematic-reviews (accessed 4 Nov 2016).
7. Coumou HCH, Meijman FJ. How do primary care physicians seek answers to clinical questions? a literature review. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2006;94(1):55–6.
8. Dawes M, Sampson U. Knowledge management in clinical practice: a systematic review of information seeking behavior in physicians. International Journal of Medical Information 2003;71:9–15. [DOI: 10.1016/S1386-5056(03)00023-6]
9. Developing, Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions, Practice Based on Evidence (DECIDE). iSoF - interactive Summary of Findings table. www.decide-collaboration.eu/isof-interactive-summary-findings-table (accessed 1 Dec 2014).
10. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629-34. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629]
11. Effective Practice, Organisation of Care (EPOC). Data Collection Checklist. Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services. 2010. www.epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/datacollectionchecklist.pdf.
12. Effective Practice, Organisation of Care (EPOC). What study designs should be included in an EPOC review and what should they be called? EPOC Resources for review authors. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2013. http://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/05%20What%20study%20designs%20should%20be%20included%20in%20an%20EPOC%20review%202013%2008%2012_2.pdf.
13. Effective Practice, Organisation of Care (EPOC). How to prepare a risk of bias table for reviews that include more than one study design. EPOC Resources for review authors. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2013. http://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/15%20How%20to%20prepare%20a%20risk%20of%20bias%20table%202013%2008%2012_1.pdf.
14. Effective Practice, Organisation of Care (EPOC). Suggested risk of bias criteria for EPOC reviews. EPOC Resources for review authors. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2015. http://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/14%20Suggested%20risk%20of%20bias%20criteria%20for%20EPOC%20reviews%202015%2009%2002.pdf.
15. Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implementation Science 2010;5:56. [DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-56]
16. Glenton C, Underland V, Oxman AD, Kho M, Pennick V. Summaries of findings, descriptions of interventions, and information about adverse effects would make reviews more informative. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006;59(8):770-8. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.12.011]
17. Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implementation Science 2012;7(50):1-17. [DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-50]
18. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ GRADE Working Group. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians?. BMJ 2008;336(7651):995–8. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.BE]
19. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction - GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(4):383-394. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026]
20. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, Helfand M, Vist G, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2013;66(2):158-72. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.012]
21. Guyatt GH, Thorlund K, Oxman AD, Walter SD, Patrick D, Furukawa TA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2013;66(2):173-83. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.08.001]
22. Hider PN, Griffin G, Walker M, Coughlan E. The information-seeking behavior of clinical staff in a large health care organization. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2009;97(1):47-50. [DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.97.1.009]
23. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
24. Higgins JPT, Lasserson T, Chandler J, Tovey D, Churchill R. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews. Cochrane; London 2016.
25. Kirkham JJ, Altman DG, Williamson PR. Bias due to changes in specified outcomes during the systematic review process. PLoS One 2010;5(3):1-5. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009810]
26. Langendam MW, Akl EA, Dahm P, Glasziou P, Guyatt G, Schünemann HJ. Assessing and presenting summaries of evidence in Cochrane Reviews. Systematic Reviews 2013;23(2):81. [DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-81]
27. Lavis JN. How can we support the use of systematic reviews in policymaking?. PLoS Medicine 2009;6(11):e1000141. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000141]
28. Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Carlsen B, Colvin CJ, Gülmezoglu M, et al. Using Qualitative Evidence in Decision Making for Health and Social Interventions: An Approach to Assess Confidence in Findings from Qualitative Evidence Syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Medicine 2015;12(10):e1001895. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.100189]
29. Lundh A, Knijnenburg SL, Jørgensen AW, van Dalen EC, Kremer LC. Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology--a systematic review. Cancer Treatment Reviews 2009;35(8):645-52. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.08.010]
30. Maguire L, Clarke, M. The communication of systematic review research findings: a randomised experiment of whether readers can understand the key messages from summaries of Cochrane reviews without reading the full review. Lancet 2014;384(S2):S48. [DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62174-7]
31. Manheimer E. Summary of Findings Tables: Presenting the Main Findings of Cochrane Complementary and Alternative Medicine–related Reviews in a Transparent and Simple Tabular Format. Global Advances in Health and Medicine: Improving Healthcare Outcomes Worldwide 2012;1(1):90-1. [DOI: 10.7453/gahmj.2012.1.1.015]
32. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Medicine 2007;4(3):e78. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078]
33. Murthy L, Shepperd S, Clarke MJ, Garner SE, Lavis JN, Perrier L, et al. Interventions to improve the use of systematic reviews in decision-making by health system managers, policy makers and clinicians. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 9. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009401.pub2]
34. Opiyo N, Shepperd S, Musila N, Allen E, Nyamai R, Fretheim A, et al. Comparison of alternative evidence summary and presentation formats in clinical guideline development: a mixed-method study. PLoS One 2013;8(1):e55067. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055067]
35. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. A consumer’s guide to subgroup analyses. Annals of Internal Medicine 1992;116:78-84. [DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-116-1-78]
36. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS Medicine 2016;13(5):e1002028. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028]
37. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
38. 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. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2010;63(6):607-19. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.013]
39. Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A (editors). GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Updated October 2013. The GRADE Working Group, 2013. www.guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook.
40. Sun X, Briel M, Walter SD, Guyatt GH. Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ 2010;340:c117. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c117]
41. Treweek S, Oxman AD, Alderson P, Bossuyt PM, Brandt L, Brozek J, et al. Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence (DECIDE): protocol and preliminary results. Implementation Science 2013;8:6. [DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-6]
42. Waddell C. So much research evidence, so little dissemination and uptake: mixing the useful with the pleasing. Evidence-Based Mental Health 2001;4:3-5. [DOI: 10.1136/ebmh.4.1.3]
43. Wallace J, Nwosu B, Clarke M. Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions. BMJ Open 2012;2:e001220. [DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001220]
44. Wallace J, Byrne C, Clarke M. Improving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance. BMJ Open 2014;4:e005834. [DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005834]