↓ Skip to main content

Comparison between the standard and a new alternative format of the Summary-of-Findings tables in Cochrane review users: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison between the standard and a new alternative format of the Summary-of-Findings tables in Cochrane review users: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0649-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alonso Carrasco-Labra, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Nancy Santesso, Ignacio Neumann, Reem A Mustafa, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Itziar Etxeandia Ikobaltzeta, Catherine De Stio, Lauren J McCullagh, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Joerg J Meerpohl, Per Olav Vandvik, Jan L Brozek, Elie A Akl, Patrick Bossuyt, Rachel Churchill, Claire Glenton, Sarah Rosenbaum, Peter Tugwell, Vivian Welch, Gordon Guyatt, Holger Schünemann

Abstract

Systematic reviews represent one of the most important tools for knowledge translation but users often struggle with understanding and interpreting their results. GRADE Summary-of-Findings tables have been developed to display results of systematic reviews in a concise and transparent manner. The current format of the Summary-of-Findings tables for presenting risks and quality of evidence improves understanding and assists users with finding key information from the systematic review. However, it has been suggested that additional methods to present risks and display results in the Summary-of-Findings tables are needed. We will conduct a non-inferiority parallel-armed randomized controlled trial to determine whether an alternative format to present risks and display Summary-of-Findings tables is not inferior compared to the current standard format. We will measure participant understanding, accessibility of the information, satisfaction, and preference for both formats. We will invite systematic review users to participate (that is clinicians, guideline developers, and researchers). The data collection process will be undertaken using the online 'Survey Monkey' system. For the primary outcome understanding, non-inferiority of the alternative format (Table A) to the current standard format (Table C) of Summary-of-Findings tables will be claimed if the upper limit of a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (for the difference of proportion of participants answering correctly a given question) excluded a difference in favor of the current format of more than 10%. This study represents an effort to provide systematic reviewers with additional options to display review results using Summary-of-Findings tables. In this way, review authors will have a variety of methods to present risks and more flexibility to choose the most appropriate table features to display (that is optional columns, risks expressions, complementary methods to display continuous outcomes, and so on). NCT02022631 (21 December 2013).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 65 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Master 7 10%
Unspecified 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Psychology 5 7%
Computer Science 4 6%
Unspecified 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 20 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 October 2015.
All research outputs
#11,058,258
of 19,211,930 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#2,780
of 4,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,451
of 244,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,211,930 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,971 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 244,007 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them