Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Opiyo, Newton, Shepperd, Sasha, Musila, Nyokabi, Allen, Elizabeth, Nyamai, Rachel, Fretheim, Atle, English, Mike
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3555827/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23372813
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055067
_version_ 1782257086583799808
author Opiyo, Newton
Shepperd, Sasha
Musila, Nyokabi
Allen, Elizabeth
Nyamai, Rachel
Fretheim, Atle
English, Mike
author_facet Opiyo, Newton
Shepperd, Sasha
Musila, Nyokabi
Allen, Elizabeth
Nyamai, Rachel
Fretheim, Atle
English, Mike
author_sort Opiyo, Newton
collection PubMed
description 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
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3555827
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35558272013-01-31 Comparison of Alternative Evidence Summary and Presentation Formats in Clinical Guideline Development: A Mixed-Method Study Opiyo, Newton Shepperd, Sasha Musila, Nyokabi Allen, Elizabeth Nyamai, Rachel Fretheim, Atle English, Mike PLoS One Research Article 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 Public Library of Science 2013-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC3555827/ /pubmed/23372813 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055067 Text en © 2013 Opiyo et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Opiyo, Newton
Shepperd, Sasha
Musila, Nyokabi
Allen, Elizabeth
Nyamai, Rachel
Fretheim, Atle
English, Mike
Comparison of Alternative Evidence Summary and Presentation Formats in Clinical Guideline Development: A Mixed-Method Study
title Comparison of Alternative Evidence Summary and Presentation Formats in Clinical Guideline Development: A Mixed-Method Study
title_full Comparison of Alternative Evidence Summary and Presentation Formats in Clinical Guideline Development: A Mixed-Method Study
title_fullStr Comparison of Alternative Evidence Summary and Presentation Formats in Clinical Guideline Development: A Mixed-Method Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Alternative Evidence Summary and Presentation Formats in Clinical Guideline Development: A Mixed-Method Study
title_short Comparison of Alternative Evidence Summary and Presentation Formats in Clinical Guideline Development: A Mixed-Method Study
title_sort comparison of alternative evidence summary and presentation formats in clinical guideline development: a mixed-method study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3555827/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23372813
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055067
work_keys_str_mv AT opiyonewton comparisonofalternativeevidencesummaryandpresentationformatsinclinicalguidelinedevelopmentamixedmethodstudy
AT shepperdsasha comparisonofalternativeevidencesummaryandpresentationformatsinclinicalguidelinedevelopmentamixedmethodstudy
AT musilanyokabi comparisonofalternativeevidencesummaryandpresentationformatsinclinicalguidelinedevelopmentamixedmethodstudy
AT allenelizabeth comparisonofalternativeevidencesummaryandpresentationformatsinclinicalguidelinedevelopmentamixedmethodstudy
AT nyamairachel comparisonofalternativeevidencesummaryandpresentationformatsinclinicalguidelinedevelopmentamixedmethodstudy
AT fretheimatle comparisonofalternativeevidencesummaryandpresentationformatsinclinicalguidelinedevelopmentamixedmethodstudy
AT englishmike comparisonofalternativeevidencesummaryandpresentationformatsinclinicalguidelinedevelopmentamixedmethodstudy