» Articles » PMID: 23372813

Comparison of Alternative Evidence Summary and Presentation Formats in Clinical Guideline Development: a Mixed-method Study

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2013 Feb 2
PMID 23372813
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Best formats for summarising and presenting evidence for use in clinical guideline development remain less well defined. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of different evidence summary formats to address this gap.

Methods: Healthcare professionals attending a one-week Kenyan, national guideline development workshop were randomly allocated to receive evidence packaged in three different formats: systematic reviews (SRs) alone, systematic reviews with summary-of-findings tables, and 'graded-entry' formats (a 'front-end' summary and a contextually framed narrative report plus the SR). The influence of format on the proportion of correct responses to key clinical questions, the primary outcome, was assessed using a written test. The secondary outcome was a composite endpoint, measured on a 5-point scale, of the clarity of presentation and ease of locating the quality of evidence for critical neonatal outcomes. Interviews conducted within two months following completion of trial data collection explored panel members' views on the evidence summary formats and experiences with appraisal and use of research information.

Results: 65 (93%) of 70 participants completed questions on the prespecified outcome measures. There were no differences between groups in the odds of correct responses to key clinical questions. 'Graded-entry' formats were associated with a higher mean composite score for clarity and accessibility of information about the quality of evidence for critical neonatal outcomes compared to systematic reviews alone (adjusted mean difference 0.52, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.99). There was no difference in the mean composite score between SR with SoF tables and SR alone. Findings from interviews with 16 panelists indicated that short narrative evidence reports were preferred for the improved clarity of information presentation and ease of use.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that 'graded-entry' evidence summary formats may improve clarity and accessibility of research evidence in clinical guideline development.

Trial Registration: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN05154264.

Citing Articles

The effectiveness of interventions to disseminate the results of non-commercial randomised clinical trials to healthcare professionals: a systematic review.

South A, Bailey J, Parmar M, Vale C Implement Sci. 2024; 19(1):8.

PMID: 38303034 PMC: 10835915. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-023-01332-w.


Do evidence summaries increase health policy-makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review.

Petkovic J, Welch V, Jacob M, Yoganathan M, Ayala A, Cunningham H Campbell Syst Rev. 2023; 14(1):1-52.

PMID: 37131376 PMC: 8428003. DOI: 10.4073/csr.2018.8.


The effectiveness and acceptability of evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development groups: a mixed-methods systematic review.

Sharp M, Baki D, Quigley J, Tyner B, Devane D, Mahtani K Implement Sci. 2022; 17(1):74.

PMID: 36303142 PMC: 9615384. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-022-01243-2.


Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research.

Stoll M, Kerwer M, Lieb K, Chasiotis A PLoS One. 2022; 17(6):e0268789.

PMID: 35666746 PMC: 9170105. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268789.


The Impact of Information Presentation and Cognitive Dissonance on Processing Systematic Review Summaries: A Randomized Controlled Trial on Bicycle Helmet Legislation.

Bechard B, Kimmerle J, Lawaree J, Bedard P, Straus S, Ouimet M Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(10).

PMID: 35627776 PMC: 9140747. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19106234.


References
1.
Guyatt G, Oxman A, Vist G, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P . GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336(7650):924-6. PMC: 2335261. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD. View

2.
Opiyo N, Shepperd S, Musila N, English M, Fretheim A . The "Child Health Evidence Week" and GRADE grid may aid transparency in the deliberative process of guideline development. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 65(9):962-9. PMC: 3413881. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.004. View

3.
Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N . Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000; 320(7227):114-6. PMC: 1117368. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114. View

4.
Garcia C, Pacheco Alvarado K, Perez Gaxiola G . Grading recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: randomised experimental evaluation of four different systems. Arch Dis Child. 2011; 96(8):723-8. DOI: 10.1136/adc.2010.199307. View

5.
Lavis J, Wilson M, Grimshaw J, Haynes R, Ouimet M, Raina P . Supporting the use of health technology assessments in policy making about health systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010; 26(4):405-14. DOI: 10.1017/S026646231000108X. View