Table 4 Quantitative results
Author (year) interventions | Primary (secondary) outcome measures | Results | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Understanding/knowledge | Satisfaction/reading experience | Accessibility/ease of use | Preference | ||
Buljan (2018) [59] • Infographic • PLS • SA (doctors only) | Understanding/knowledge (max score = 10) Reading experience (max score = 50) User-friendliness (max score = 50) | Patients (n = 99), median score (95% CI) Infographic: 7.0 (6.0–7.0) PLS: 7.0 (6.0–7.0) P = 0.511 Doctors (n = 64), median score (95% CI) Infographic: 8.0 (6.0–8.0) PLS: 8.0 (7.0–9.0) SA: 8.0 (5.9–9.0) P = 0.611 Significant predictor of knowledge score • Patients only: awareness of Cochrane SRs (OR 5.3; 95% CI: 1.7–16.6), 13.4% of variance | Reading experience Patients (n = 99), median score (95% CI) Infographic: 33.0 (28.0–36.0) PLS: 22.5 (19.0–27.4) P < 0.001 Doctors (n = 64), median score (95% CI) Infographic: 37.0 (26.8–41.3) PLS: 32.0 (30.0–39.9) SA: 24.0 (21.3–27.2) P = 0.002 | User-friendliness Patients (n = 99), median score (95% CI) Infographic: 30.0 (25.5–34.5) PLS: 21.0 (19.0–25.0) P < 0.001 Doctors (n = 64), median score (95% CI) Infographic: 36.0 (30.9–40.0) PLS: 29.0 (26.8–36.2) SA: 25.0 (23.5–27.2) P = 0.003 | Not reported |
Carrasco-Labra (2016) [60] • Existing GRADE SoF table • Alternate GRADE SoF tables | Understanding (7 multiple-choice questions on 5-point scale, analysed at question level) Accessibility of information (5-point scale), satisfaction (6 yes/no questions analysed at question level), preference (7-point scale) | 1. 4/7 items risk difference (RD, 95% CI) in favour of alternate SoF tables 2. Understanding of quality of evidence and treatment effect RD: 62% (52–71), P < 0.001 3. Ability to determine risk difference RD: 63% (54.6–71), P < 0.001 4. Ability to quantify risk RD: 6% (0.1–13.3), P = 0.06 5. Understanding of quality of evidence RD: 7% (0.1–12.4), P = 0.06 6. 3/7 items similar results (RD 95% CI) between formats 7. Ability to interpret risk RD: 0% (−5.3–5.4), P = 0.99 8. Ability to relate N of participant/studies and outcomes RD: −3% (−7.5–1.7), P = 1.00 9. Ability to interpret footnotes RD: 7% (−2–15), P = 0.18 | Questions where largest proportion in favour of alternate SoF tables: 5/6 Questions where largest proportion in favour of existing SoF table: 1/6 | Overall accessibility mean difference (MD (SE)) in favour of alternate SoF: MD 0.3 (0.11), P = 0.001 | MD (SE) in favour of alternate SoF: 2.8 (1.6) |
Opiyo (2013) [50] • Normal systematic review (SR) • SR plus SoF tables • Graded-entry SR | Understanding (2 questions per format on 3-point scale) Composite endpoint (on 5-point scale) Clarity (1 question per format on 3-point scale) Accessibility (2 questions per format on 5-point scale) | Odds ratio (OR) (95% CI) SR plus SoF versus SR, OR 0.59 (0.32–1.07) Graded-entry SR versus SR, OR 0.66 (0.36–1.21) Sub-group analyses: policymakers understanding • SR plus SoF OR 1.5 (0.15–15.15) • Graded-entry OR 1.5 (0.64 t–3.54) | Not reported | Accessibility SR plus SoF versus SR • OR (95% CI) 0.91 • (0.57–1.46) • MD (95% CI) 0.11 (−0.71–0.48) Graded-entry SR versus SR • OR 1.06 (1.06 to 2.20) • - MD (95% CI) 0.52 (0.06–0.99) | Not reported |
Rosenbaum (2010) [61] RCT 1 • Cochrane review (CR) with no SoF table • CR with SoF table (limited formatting) • CR with SoF table (full formatting) | User satisfaction (multiple-choice questionnaire) Perceived understanding and ease of use (7 questions on 8-point scale) | Proportion who agree/strongly agree main findings were easy to understand % (95% CI) • No SoF table: 56 (37–75) • With SoF table (both formats): 60 (46–74) • P = 0.54 | Not reported | Proportion who agree/strongly agree very accessible % (95% CI) • No SoF table: 17 (2–32) • With SoF table (both formats): 41 (27–56) • P = 0.037 | 65% agreed CR should include SOF with the proposed format |
Rosenbaum (2010) RCT 2 • Cochrane review (CR) with no SoF table • CR with SoF table (limited formatting) • CR with SoF table (full formatting) | Understanding (4 questions) Time spent finding 5 key results | 2/4 difference in proportion of questions correctly answered (%, 95% CI) favouring with SOF 1. Risk in the control group: 44% (21–67) versus 93% (81–100), P = 0.003) 2. Risk in the intervention group: 11% (0–26) versus 87% (69–100), P < 0.001) 2/4 no difference in proportion of questions correctly answered (%, 95% CI) 1. Confidence of review authors: without SoF 67% (45–88) vs. with SoF 87% (69–100), P = 0.18 2. Identifying important outcomes: without SoF 33% (9–57) versus with SoF 53% (28–79), P = 0.27 | Not reported | Mean time (min) finding answers Risk in the control group • No SoF table: 4 • With SoF table: 1.5 • P = 0.02 Risk in the intervention group • No SoF table: 2.8 • With SoF table: 1.3 P = 0.118 Confidence of review authors • No SoF table: 1.5 • With SoF table: 2.1 • P = 0.47 Identifying important outcomes • No SoF table: 1.9 • With SoF table: 2.0 • P = 0.88 | 84% agreed CR should include SOF with the proposed format |