Cargando…

Decision-Making about Healthcare Related Tests and Diagnostic Strategies: User Testing of GRADE Evidence Tables

OBJECTIVE: To develop guidance on what information to include and how to present it in tables summarizing the evidence from systematic reviews of test accuracy following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. METHODS: To design and refine the evidence...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mustafa, Reem A., Wiercioch, Wojtek, Santesso, Nancy, Cheung, Adrienne, Prediger, Barbara, Baldeh, Tejan, Carrasco-Labra, Alonso, Brignardello-Petersen, Romina, Neumann, Ignacio, Bossuyt, Patrick, Garg, Amit X., Lelgemann, Monika, Bühler, Diedrich, Brozek, Jan, Schünemann, Holger J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4608675/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26474310
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134553
_version_ 1782395695550955520
author Mustafa, Reem A.
Wiercioch, Wojtek
Santesso, Nancy
Cheung, Adrienne
Prediger, Barbara
Baldeh, Tejan
Carrasco-Labra, Alonso
Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
Neumann, Ignacio
Bossuyt, Patrick
Garg, Amit X.
Lelgemann, Monika
Bühler, Diedrich
Brozek, Jan
Schünemann, Holger J.
author_facet Mustafa, Reem A.
Wiercioch, Wojtek
Santesso, Nancy
Cheung, Adrienne
Prediger, Barbara
Baldeh, Tejan
Carrasco-Labra, Alonso
Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
Neumann, Ignacio
Bossuyt, Patrick
Garg, Amit X.
Lelgemann, Monika
Bühler, Diedrich
Brozek, Jan
Schünemann, Holger J.
author_sort Mustafa, Reem A.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To develop guidance on what information to include and how to present it in tables summarizing the evidence from systematic reviews of test accuracy following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. METHODS: To design and refine the evidence tables, we used an iterative process based on the analysis of data from four rounds of discussions, feedback and user testing. During the final round, we conducted one-on-one user testing with target end users. We presented a number of alternative formats of evidence tables to participants and obtained information about users’ understanding and preferences. RESULTS: More than 150 users participated in initial discussions and provided their formal and informal feedback. 20 users completed one-on-one user testing interviews. Almost all participants preferred summarizing the results of systematic reviews of test accuracy in tabular format rather than plain text. Users generally preferred less complex tables but found presenting sensitivity and specificity estimates only as too simplistic. Users found the presentation of test accuracy for several values of prevalence initially confusing but modifying table layout and adding sample clinical scenarios for each prevalence reduced this confusion. Providing information about clinical consequences of testing result was viewed as not feasible for authors of systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: We present the current formats for tables presenting test accuracy following the GRADE approach. These tables can be developed using GRADEpro guidelines development tool (www.guidelinedevelopment.org or www.gradepro.org) and are being further developed into electronic interactive tables that will suit the needs of different end users. The formatting of these tables, and how they influence result interpretation and decision-making will be further evaluated in a randomized trial.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4608675
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46086752015-10-29 Decision-Making about Healthcare Related Tests and Diagnostic Strategies: User Testing of GRADE Evidence Tables Mustafa, Reem A. Wiercioch, Wojtek Santesso, Nancy Cheung, Adrienne Prediger, Barbara Baldeh, Tejan Carrasco-Labra, Alonso Brignardello-Petersen, Romina Neumann, Ignacio Bossuyt, Patrick Garg, Amit X. Lelgemann, Monika Bühler, Diedrich Brozek, Jan Schünemann, Holger J. PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: To develop guidance on what information to include and how to present it in tables summarizing the evidence from systematic reviews of test accuracy following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. METHODS: To design and refine the evidence tables, we used an iterative process based on the analysis of data from four rounds of discussions, feedback and user testing. During the final round, we conducted one-on-one user testing with target end users. We presented a number of alternative formats of evidence tables to participants and obtained information about users’ understanding and preferences. RESULTS: More than 150 users participated in initial discussions and provided their formal and informal feedback. 20 users completed one-on-one user testing interviews. Almost all participants preferred summarizing the results of systematic reviews of test accuracy in tabular format rather than plain text. Users generally preferred less complex tables but found presenting sensitivity and specificity estimates only as too simplistic. Users found the presentation of test accuracy for several values of prevalence initially confusing but modifying table layout and adding sample clinical scenarios for each prevalence reduced this confusion. Providing information about clinical consequences of testing result was viewed as not feasible for authors of systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: We present the current formats for tables presenting test accuracy following the GRADE approach. These tables can be developed using GRADEpro guidelines development tool (www.guidelinedevelopment.org or www.gradepro.org) and are being further developed into electronic interactive tables that will suit the needs of different end users. The formatting of these tables, and how they influence result interpretation and decision-making will be further evaluated in a randomized trial. Public Library of Science 2015-10-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4608675/ /pubmed/26474310 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134553 Text en © 2015 Mustafa 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
Mustafa, Reem A.
Wiercioch, Wojtek
Santesso, Nancy
Cheung, Adrienne
Prediger, Barbara
Baldeh, Tejan
Carrasco-Labra, Alonso
Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
Neumann, Ignacio
Bossuyt, Patrick
Garg, Amit X.
Lelgemann, Monika
Bühler, Diedrich
Brozek, Jan
Schünemann, Holger J.
Decision-Making about Healthcare Related Tests and Diagnostic Strategies: User Testing of GRADE Evidence Tables
title Decision-Making about Healthcare Related Tests and Diagnostic Strategies: User Testing of GRADE Evidence Tables
title_full Decision-Making about Healthcare Related Tests and Diagnostic Strategies: User Testing of GRADE Evidence Tables
title_fullStr Decision-Making about Healthcare Related Tests and Diagnostic Strategies: User Testing of GRADE Evidence Tables
title_full_unstemmed Decision-Making about Healthcare Related Tests and Diagnostic Strategies: User Testing of GRADE Evidence Tables
title_short Decision-Making about Healthcare Related Tests and Diagnostic Strategies: User Testing of GRADE Evidence Tables
title_sort decision-making about healthcare related tests and diagnostic strategies: user testing of grade evidence tables
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4608675/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26474310
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134553
work_keys_str_mv AT mustafareema decisionmakingabouthealthcarerelatedtestsanddiagnosticstrategiesusertestingofgradeevidencetables
AT wierciochwojtek decisionmakingabouthealthcarerelatedtestsanddiagnosticstrategiesusertestingofgradeevidencetables
AT santessonancy decisionmakingabouthealthcarerelatedtestsanddiagnosticstrategiesusertestingofgradeevidencetables
AT cheungadrienne decisionmakingabouthealthcarerelatedtestsanddiagnosticstrategiesusertestingofgradeevidencetables
AT predigerbarbara decisionmakingabouthealthcarerelatedtestsanddiagnosticstrategiesusertestingofgradeevidencetables
AT baldehtejan decisionmakingabouthealthcarerelatedtestsanddiagnosticstrategiesusertestingofgradeevidencetables
AT carrascolabraalonso decisionmakingabouthealthcarerelatedtestsanddiagnosticstrategiesusertestingofgradeevidencetables
AT brignardellopetersenromina decisionmakingabouthealthcarerelatedtestsanddiagnosticstrategiesusertestingofgradeevidencetables
AT neumannignacio decisionmakingabouthealthcarerelatedtestsanddiagnosticstrategiesusertestingofgradeevidencetables
AT bossuytpatrick decisionmakingabouthealthcarerelatedtestsanddiagnosticstrategiesusertestingofgradeevidencetables
AT gargamitx decisionmakingabouthealthcarerelatedtestsanddiagnosticstrategiesusertestingofgradeevidencetables
AT lelgemannmonika decisionmakingabouthealthcarerelatedtestsanddiagnosticstrategiesusertestingofgradeevidencetables
AT buhlerdiedrich decisionmakingabouthealthcarerelatedtestsanddiagnosticstrategiesusertestingofgradeevidencetables
AT brozekjan decisionmakingabouthealthcarerelatedtestsanddiagnosticstrategiesusertestingofgradeevidencetables
AT schunemannholgerj decisionmakingabouthealthcarerelatedtestsanddiagnosticstrategiesusertestingofgradeevidencetables