Table 6 Studies assessing systematic review summary formats (ordered by study design and risk of bias)
Study ID | Design | Setting | Length of follow-up | Intervention groups | Audience | Goal of dissemination | Risk of bias assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Opiyo 2013 [40] | Mixed methods: RCT and qualitative interviews | A 1-week national guideline development workshop (‘Child Health Evidence Week’), held in Nairobi, Kenya, between 21 and 25 June 2010 | Immediately after the intervention | A: Systematic review alone B: Systematic review plus summary of findings tables C: Graded-entry formats All participants received one tracer-topic with packaging approach A, one with packaging approach B and one with packaging approach C | Healthcare professionals with varied roles in neonatal and paediatric policy and care in Kenya. Sixty-five guideline panel members took part | Ability to understand results and improve usefulness (from systematic reviews on the effectiveness of different neonatal care interventions, including feeding regimens, hand hygiene and Kangaroo care) | Low risk of bias |
Vandvik 2012 [41] | RCT comparing two formats of the evidence profile (table A and table B) differing by four features | Online (USA) | Immediately after the intervention | Panellists were randomised to four groups (A1, A2, B1 and B2) based on a 2 by 2 combination of table (A vs B) and clinical question (1 vs 2) | Guideline panellists involved in developing the AT9 guidelines 1A: 18 panellists and 6 editors 1B: 17 panellists and 5 editors 2A: 16 panellists and 5 editors 2B: 16 panellists and 5 editors (28 panellists declined to take part) | Ability to understand results and reduce time spent finding key information (GRADE evidence profiles from a meta-analysis of antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis using different drugs) | Low risk of bias |
Neumann 2018 [42] | This study was a hybrid between a survey and a randomised trial | Grand rounds or clinical meetings in Argentina, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Lebanon, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Switzerland and the USA | Immediately after summaries were given | It compared evidence summaries plus recommendations versus evidence summaries alone. First, participants were randomised to receive either (1) two clinical scenarios involving strong recommendations based on low or very low certainty of evidence or (2) two scenarios involving weak recommendations based on low or very low certainty of evidence. Within each group, respondents were provided with an evidence summary for one scenario and with an evidence summary plus a recommendation for the other scenario. Participants were also randomised in the order in which they received the recommendation, that is, the first or second clinical scenario | Clinicians working primarily in general internal medicine or family medicine. 687 participants were approached, and 496 took part Strong recommendation, recommendation first: 123 Strong recommendation, no recommendation first: 113 Weak recommendation, recommendation first: 131 Weak recommendation, no recommendation first: 128 | Ability to understand results and clinicians’ preferences around providing recommendations in addition to evidence summaries (from systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions for flu, thrombophilia, nutrition and thrombosis) | Low risk of bias |
Rosenbaum 2010a [43] | Two randomised controlled trials: Trial 1 was three arms, and trial 2 was two arms | RCT 1: workshop for newcomers to evidence-based practice RCT2: meeting for members of Continental European Cochrane entities | Immediately after looking at the intervention | Trial 1: • Review with summary of findings table with full formatting • Review with summary of findings table with limited formatting • Review without summary of findings table Trial 2: • Review with summary of findings table • Review without summary of findings table | RCT 1: 72 workshop participants and tutors completed the questionnaires out of approximately 90 people present. These were largely health professionals, many of whom were beginners in evidence-based healthcare and did not have English as their first language. (51 health professionals, 28 researchers) RCT2: The 33 participants were staff members from Cochrane entities, including review group coordinators, trial search coordinators and centre staff. Everybody present participated. Most did not have English as their first language | Ability to understand results and time spent finding key results (from a systematic review of compression stockings for deep vein thrombosis) | Some risk of bias concerns around the possibility of cross-contamination, as participants were in the same room when the different versions of the table were given to participants, so could have seen the alternative version |
Gartlehner 2017 [44] | RCT comparing a fishbone diagram to a summary of findings table | Austrian University | Immediately after the intervention | One group was shown a fishbone diagram, and the other group was shown a summary of findings table | 77 students who were enrolled in a health sciences bachelor programme or in a health management master’s program | Ability to understand results, utility and time spent finding key information (from a systematic review of pre-operative anaemia management) | Some risk of bias concerns around lack of information on randomisation, blinding and deviations from intended interventions and proportions of missing data across intervention groups |