Dataset Information

Comparison of alternative evidence summary and presentation formats in clinical guideline development: a mixed-method study.

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.

SUBMITTER: Opiyo N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3555827 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of alternative evidence summary and presentation formats in clinical guideline development: a mixed-method study.

Opiyo Newton N Shepperd Sasha S Musila Nyokabi N Allen Elizabeth E Nyamai Rachel R Fretheim Atle A English Mike M

PloS one 20130125 1

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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-finding ...[more]

PMID: 23372813

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo develop evidence-based recommendations for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in multiple sclerosis (MS).MethodsWe searched the literature (1970-March 2011; March 2011-September 2013 MEDLINE search), classified articles, and linked recommendations to evidence.Results and recommendationsClinicians might offer oral cannabis extract for spasticity symptoms and pain (excluding central neuropathic pain) (Level A). Clinicians might offer tetrahydrocannabinol for spasticity symptoms and pain (excluding central neuropathic pain) (Level B). Clinicians should counsel patients that these agents are probably ineffective for objective spasticity (short-term)/tremor (Level B) and possibly effective for spasticity and pain (long-term) (Level C). Clinicians might offer Sativex oromucosal cannabinoid spray (nabiximols) for spasticity symptoms, pain, and urinary frequency (Level B). Clinicians should counsel patients that these agents are probably ineffective for objective spasticity/urinary incontinence (Level B). Clinicians might choose not to offer these agents for tremor (Level C). Clinicians might counsel patients that magnetic therapy is probably effective for fatigue and probably ineffective for depression (Level B); fish oil is probably ineffective for relapses, disability, fatigue, MRI lesions, and quality of life (QOL) (Level B); ginkgo biloba is ineffective for cognition (Level A) and possibly effective for fatigue (Level C); reflexology is possibly effective for paresthesia (Level C); Cari Loder regimen is possibly ineffective for disability, symptoms, depression, and fatigue (Level C); and bee sting therapy is possibly ineffective for relapses, disability, fatigue, lesion burden/volume, and health-related QOL (Level C). Cannabinoids may cause adverse effects. Clinicians should exercise caution regarding standardized vs nonstandardized cannabis extracts and overall CAM quality control/nonregulation. Safety/efficacy of other CAM/CAM interaction with MS disease-modifying therapies is unknown.

Project description:ObjectiveTo update the 1997 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter regarding sports concussion, focusing on 4 questions: 1) What factors increase/decrease concussion risk? 2) What diagnostic tools identify those with concussion and those at increased risk for severe/prolonged early impairments, neurologic catastrophe, or chronic neurobehavioral impairment? 3) What clinical factors identify those at increased risk for severe/prolonged early postconcussion impairments, neurologic catastrophe, recurrent concussions, or chronic neurobehavioral impairment? 4) What interventions enhance recovery, reduce recurrent concussion risk, or diminish long-term sequelae? The complete guideline on which this summary is based is available as an online data supplement to this article.MethodsWe systematically reviewed the literature from 1955 to June 2012 for pertinent evidence. We assessed evidence for quality and synthesized into conclusions using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. We used a modified Delphi process to develop recommendations.ResultsSpecific risk factors can increase or decrease concussion risk. Diagnostic tools to help identify individuals with concussion include graded symptom checklists, the Standardized Assessment of Concussion, neuropsychological assessments, and the Balance Error Scoring System. Ongoing clinical symptoms, concussion history, and younger age identify those at risk for postconcussion impairments. Risk factors for recurrent concussion include history of multiple concussions, particularly within 10 days after initial concussion. Risk factors for chronic neurobehavioral impairment include concussion exposure and APOE ε4 genotype. Data are insufficient to show that any intervention enhances recovery or diminishes long-term sequelae postconcussion. Practice recommendations are presented for preparticipation counseling, management of suspected concussion, and management of diagnosed concussion.

Project description:To assess evidence regarding periprocedural management of antithrombotic drugs in patients with ischemic cerebrovascular disease. The complete guideline on which this summary is based is available as an online data supplement to this article.Systematic literature review with practice recommendations.Clinicians managing antithrombotic medications periprocedurally must weigh bleeding risks from drug continuation against thromboembolic risks from discontinuation. Stroke patients undergoing dental procedures should routinely continue aspirin (Level A). Stroke patients undergoing invasive ocular anesthesia, cataract surgery, dermatologic procedures, transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, spinal/epidural procedures, and carpal tunnel surgery should probably continue aspirin (Level B). Some stroke patients undergoing vitreoretinal surgery, EMG, transbronchial lung biopsy, colonoscopic polypectomy, upper endoscopy and biopsy/sphincterotomy, and abdominal ultrasound-guided biopsies should possibly continue aspirin (Level C). Stroke patients requiring warfarin should routinely continue it when undergoing dental procedures (Level A) and probably continue it for dermatologic procedures (Level B). Some patients undergoing EMG, prostate procedures, inguinal herniorrhaphy, and endothermal ablation of the great saphenous vein should possibly continue warfarin (Level C). Whereas neurologists should counsel that warfarin probably does not increase clinically important bleeding with ocular anesthesia (Level B), other ophthalmologic studies lack the statistical precision to make recommendations (Level U). Neurologists should counsel that warfarin might increase bleeding with colonoscopic polypectomy (Level C). There is insufficient evidence to support or refute periprocedural heparin bridging therapy to reduce thromboembolic events in chronically anticoagulated patients (Level U). Neurologists should counsel that bridging therapy is probably associated with increased bleeding risks as compared with warfarin cessation (Level B). The risk difference as compared with continuing warfarin is unknown (Level U).

Dataset Information

Comparison of alternative evidence summary and presentation formats in clinical guideline development: a mixed-method study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Comparison of alternative evidence summary and presentation formats in clinical guideline development: a mixed-method study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets