Search

Objective: To develop a Summary of Findings (SoF) table for use in Cochrane reviews that is understandable and useful for health professionals, acceptable to Cochrane Collaboration stakeholders, and feasible to implement. Study Design and Setting: We gathered stakeholder feedback on the format and content of an SoF table from an advisory group of more than 50 participants and their constituencies through e-mail consultations. We conducted user tests using a think-aloud protocol method, collecting feedback from 21 health professionals and researchers in Norway and the UK. We analyzed the feedback, defined problem areas, and generated new solutions in brainstorming workshops. Results: Stakeholders were concerned about precision in the data representation and about production feasibility. User testing revealed unexpected comprehension problems, mainly confusion about what the different numbers referred to (class reference). Resolving the tension between achieving table precision and table simplicity became the main focus of the working group. Conclusion: User testing led to a table more useful and understandable for clinical audiences. We arrived at an SoF table that was acceptable to the stakeholders and in principle feasible to implement technically. Some challenges remain, including presenting continuous outcomes and technical/editorial implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: To measure the effects of a summary-of-findings (SoF) table on user satisfaction, understanding, and time spent finding key results in a Cochrane review. Study Design and Setting: We randomized participants in an evidence-based practice workshop (randomized controlled trial [RCT] I) and a Cochrane Collaboration entities meeting (RCT II) to receive a Cochrane review with or without an SoF table. In RCT I, we measured user satisfaction. In RCT II, we measured correct comprehension and time spent finding key results. Results: RCT I: Participants with the SoF table (n =47) were more likely to “agree” or “strongly agree” that it was easy to find results for important outcomes than (n =25) participants without the SoF table—68% vs. 40% (P =0.021). RCT II: Participants with the SoF table (n =18) were more likely to correctly answer two questions regarding results than (n =15) those without the SoF table: 93% vs. 44% (P =0.003) and 87% vs. 11% (P <0.001). Participants with the SoF table spent an average of 90 seconds to find key information compared with 4 minutes for participants without the SoF table (P =0.002). Conclusion: In two small trials, we found that inclusion of an SoF table in a review improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key findings compared with reviews with no SoF table. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]