RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To map whether and how systematic reviews (SRs) with network meta-analysis (NMA) use presentation formats to report (a) structured evidence summaries - here defined as reporting of effects estimates in absolute effects with certainty ratings and with a method to rate interventions across one or more outcome(s) - and (b) NMA results in general. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic survey, searching MEDLINE (Ovid) for SRs with NMA published between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. We planned to include a random sample of publications, with predefined mechanisms in place for saturation, and included SRs that met prespecified quality criteria and extracted data on presentation formats that reported: (a) estimates of effects, (b) certainty of the evidence, or (c) rating of interventions. RESULTS: The 200 eligible SRs, from 158 unique Journals, utilized 1133 presentation formats. We found structured evidence summaries in 10 publications (5.0%), with 3 (1.5%) reporting structured evidence summaries across all outcomes, including benefits and harms. Sixteen of the 133 SRs (11.7%) reporting dichotomous outcomes included estimates of absolute effects. Seventy-six SRs (38.0%) reported both benefits and harms and 26 SRs (13.0%) reported certainty ratings in presentation formats, 20 (76.9%) used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and 6 (23.1%) used Confidence In Network Meta-analysis. Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve was the most common method to rate interventions (69 SRs, 34.5%). NMA results were most often reported using forest plots (108 SRs, 54.0%) and league tables (93 SRs, 46.5%). CONCLUSION: Most SRs with NMA do not report structured evidence summaries and only rarely do such summaries include reporting of both benefits and harms; those that do offer effective user-friendly communication and provide models for optimal NMA presentation practice.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate alternative formats of summary of findings (SoF) tables for single comparison with multiple outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a three-arm randomized controlled noninferiority trial (RCT) in the following systematic review (SR) users: researchers, clinical practice guideline developers, health care providers, policymakers, and knowledge transfer organizations to measure understanding, accessibility, satisfaction, and preference across the current grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) SoF, an alternative GRADE SoF, or an adapted evidence-based practice center (EPC) program SoF table. RESULTS: One Hundred Seventy-Nine participants were randomized, and 129 participants completed the RCT (n = 47 current GRADE, n = 41 alternative GRADE, n = 41 adapted EPC). Understanding the certainty of evidence and treatment effect was comparable across groups. The adapted EPC SoF table was inferior for quantifying risk and RD compared to the alternatives (<35% correct vs. >85% correct). Participants reported increased satisfaction when SoF tables presented number needed to treat (NNT), anticipated absolute effect differences, and narrative syntheses for evidence that could not be meta-analyzed. Participants reported accessibility to information as significantly better in both GRADE SoF tables, when compared with the adapted EPC SoF table. Participants preferred the alternative GRADE SoF table format. CONCLUSION: The alternative GRADE SoF table is a promising format for SR users preferring a comprehensive presentation of SR results for single comparisons.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Clinical guideline development often involves a rigorous synthesis of evidence involving multidisciplinary stakeholders with different priorities and knowledge of evidence synthesis; this makes communicating findings complex. Summary formats are typically used to communicate the results of evidence syntheses; however, there is little consensus on which formats are most effective and acceptable for different stakeholders. METHODS: This mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability (e.g. preferences and attitudes and preferences towards) of evidence synthesis summary formats for GDG members. We followed the PRISMA 2020 guideline and Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis for MMSRs. We searched six databases (inception to April 20, 2021) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RCTs with a qualitative component, and qualitative studies. Screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed in duplicate. Qualitative findings were synthesised using meta-aggregation, and quantitative findings are described narratively. RESULTS: We identified 17,240 citations and screened 54 full-text articles, resulting in 22 eligible articles (20 unique studies): 4 articles reported the results of 5 RCTs, one of which also had a qualitative component. The other 18 articles discussed the results of 16 qualitative studies. Therefore, we had 5 trials and 17 qualitative studies to extract data from. Studies were geographically heterogeneous and included a variety of stakeholders and summary formats. All 5 RCTs assessed knowledge or understanding with 3 reporting improvement with newer formats. The qualitative analysis identified 6 categories of recommendations: 'presenting information', 'tailoring information' for end users, 'trust in producers and summary', 'knowledge required' to understand findings, 'quality of evidence', and properly 'contextualising information'. Across these categories, the synthesis resulted in 126 recommendations for practice. Nine recommendations were supported by both quantitative and qualitative evidence and 116 by only qualitative. A majority focused on how to present information (n = 64) and tailor content for different end users (n = 24). CONCLUSIONS: This MMSR provides guidance on how to improve evidence summary structure and layout. This can be used by synthesis producers to better communicate to GDGs. Study findings will inform the co-creation of evidence summary format prototypes based on GDG member's needs. Trial registration The protocol for this project was previously published, and the project was preregistered on Open Science Framework (Clyne and Sharp, Evidence synthesis and translation of findings for national clinical guideline development: addressing the needs and preferences of guideline development groups, 2021; Sharp and Clyne, Evidence synthesis summary formats for decision-makers and Clinical Guideline Development Groups: A mixed-methods systematic review protocol, 2021).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Overlapping systematic reviews (SRs) are increasingly frequent in the medical literature. They can easily generate discordant evidence, as estimates of effect sizes and their interpretation might differ from one source to another. Objective: To analyze how methodologists and clinicians make a decision when faced with discordant evidence formalized in structured tables. Methods: We conducted a 16-item survey exploring how methodologists and clinicians would react when presented with multiple Summary of Findings (SoF) tables (generated using the GRADE tool) derived from 4 overlapping and discordant SRs and meta-analyses on thrombolytic therapy for intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. SoF tables reported 4 different magnitudes of effects and overall certainty. Participants were asked to provide their recommendations regarding the intervention and the reasons behind their conclusion. Results: Of the 80 invitees, 41 (51%) participated. The majority described themselves as "somewhat familiar" or experts with SoF tables. The majority recommended the therapy (pharmacological systemic thrombolysis), grading the recommendation as weak positive. Certainty of evidence and benefit-risk balance were the two criteria that prevailed in generating the recommendation. When faced with overlapping meta-analyses, the preferred approach was to use only high-quality SRs and exclude redundant SRs. Several participants suggested integrating the SoF tables with additional information, such as a more comprehensive evaluation of the risk of bias of systematic reviews (71%), heterogeneity/inconsistency (68%) and studies included within each SR (62%). Conclusion: When faced with multiple controversial SR results, the type and completeness of reported information in SoF tables affect experts' ability to make recommendations. Developers of the SoF table should consider collating key information from overlapping and potentially discordant reviews.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: We conceptualize patient values and preferences as the relative importance of health outcomes (RIO) which are often obtained through utility elicitation research. A transparent and structured approach to present synthesized RIO evidence and the certainty of this evidence is needed. This study aims to adapt the summary of findings (SoF) table to describe the RIO. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed three interactive workshops with a protype version of the SoF table for RIO, evidence adapted from the SoF table for intervention effects. We then tested the new format through semi-structured interviews with professionals who interpret RIO evidence (e.g., systematic review authors and guideline developers). RESULTS: We adapted the SoF table for the presentation of RIO evidence. This SoF table may be easy to use, but bears one risk: some participants misunderstood the utility information and the variability around the RIO. We added a visual analogue scale to clarify the concept of utilities. CONCLUSION: Through a multi-stage process including brainstorming sessions and interviews, we adapted the SoF table to present RIO evidence. This table may enhance understanding of evidence synthesis of values and preferences, facilitating the incorporation of this type of evidence in decision-making.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction: Evidence syntheses, often in the form of systematic reviews, are essential for clinical guideline development and informing changes to health policies. However, clinical guideline development groups (CGDG) are multidisciplinary, and participants such as policymakers, healthcare professionals and patient representatives can face obstacles when trying to understand and use evidence synthesis findings. Summary formats to communicate the results of evidence syntheses have become increasingly common, but it is currently unclear which format is most effective for different stakeholders. This mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) evaluates the effectiveness and acceptability of different evidence synthesis summary formats for CGDG members. Methods: This protocol follows guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute on MMSRs and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA)-P guideline. A comprehensive search of six databases will be performed with no language restrictions. Primary outcomes are those relating to the effectiveness and preferences for and attitudes towards the different summary formats. We will include qualitative research and randomised controlled trials. Two reviewers will perform title, abstract, and full-text screening. Independent double-extraction of study characteristics and critical appraisal items will be undertaken using a standardised form. We will use a convergent segregated approach to analyse quantitative and qualitative data separately; results will then be integrated. Discussion: The results of this systematic review will provide an overview of the effectiveness and acceptability of different summary formats for evidence synthesis findings. These findings can be helpful for those in or communicating to guideline development groups. The results can also inform the development and pilot-testing of summary formats for evidence summaries.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To provide GRADE guidance on how to prepare Summary of Findings tables and Evidence Profiles for time-to-event outcomes with a focus on the calculation of the corresponding absolute effect estimates. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This guidance was justified by a research project identifying frequent errors and limitations in the presentation of time-to-event outcomes in the Summary of Findings tables. We developed this guidance through an iterative process that included membership consultation, feedback, presentation, and discussion at meetings of the GRADE Working Group. RESULTS: Review authors need to carefully consider the definition of the outcome of interest; although often the event is used as label for the outcome of interest (e.g., death or mortality), the event-free survival (e.g., overall survival) is reported throughout individual studies. Review authors should calculate the absolute effect correctly, either for the event or absence of the event. We also provide examples on how to calculate the absolute effects for events and the absence of events for various baseline or control group risks and time points. CONCLUSIONS: This article aids in the development of Summary of Findings tables and Evidence Profiles, including time-to-event outcomes, and addresses the most common scenarios when calculating absolute effects in order to provide an accurate interpretation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to develop a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) summary of findings (SoF) table format that displays the critical information from a network meta-analysis (NMA). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We applied a user experience model for data analysis based on four rounds of semistructured interviews. RESULTS: We interviewed 32 stakeholders who conduct or use MA. Four rounds of interviews produced six candidate NMA-SoF tables. Users found a final NMA-SoF table that included the following components highly acceptable: (1) details of the clinical question (PICO), (2) a plot depicting network geometry, (3) relative and absolute effect estimates, (4) certainty of evidence, (5) ranking of treatments, and (6) interpretation of findings. CONCLUSION: Using stakeholder feedback, we developed a new GRADE NMA-SoF table that includes the relevant components that facilitate understanding NMA findings and health decision-making.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Clinical guidelines are based on the best available evidence and produced systematically. In this context, the transparent presentation of the decision-making process from evidence to recommendation is indispensable. The Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for clinical practice recommendations enables guideline panels to structure their approach and make it comprehensible. The EtD frameworks include three main sections: formulating the question, assessing the evidence and "Additional considerations" for each criterion, and drawing conclusions. This article focuses on the selection and operationalization of those criteria of the EtD framework that are relevant for clinical recommendations in guidelines. These include the priority of the problem, benefits and harms, certainty of the evidence, importance of the outcome, balance, resource use, equity, acceptability and feasibility. To make a recommendation, a panel must consider the implication and importance of each of the above judgments. The EtD framework helps ensure consideration of key criteria that determine whether an intervention should be recommended and that judgments are informed by the best available evidence.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate in how many cancer-related Cochrane reviews hazard ratio (HR)-based absolute effects in summary of findings (SoF) tables have been correctly calculated and reported. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified all Cochrane cancer intervention reviews that reported an HR for at least one outcome and provided a SoF table, published between January 2011 and December 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: In 28 reviews (29%) of 96 included Cochrane reviews, absolute effects in the SoF tables were calculated in a correct manner. In 23 reviews (24%), absolute effects had been correctly calculated, but there was no explanation given why authors calculated event-free survival (e.g., overall survival) throughout the review but reported number of events in SoF tables (e.g., death). Twelve reviews (13%) provided incorrect absolute effects. For seven reviews (7%), it was unclear if absolute effects were correctly calculated. In 26 (27%) reviews, no absolute effects based on the given HR were calculated. CONCLUSIONS: In less than one-third of cancer-related Cochrane reviews, absolute effect size estimates were correctly calculated and reported. There is a need for guidance on how to calculate and report absolute effect estimates based on HR data.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To describe the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) interactive Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for tests and test strategies for clinical, public health or coverage decisions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: As part of the GRADE Working Group's DECIDE project we conducted workshops, user testing with systematic review authors, guideline developers and other decision makers, and piloted versions of the EtD framework. RESULTS: EtD frameworks for tests share the structure, explicitness, and transparency of other EtD frameworks. They require specifying the purpose of the test, linked or related management and the key outcomes of concern for different test results and subsequent management. The EtD criteria address test accuracy and assessments of the certainty of the additional evidence necessary for decision-making. When there is no direct evidence of test effects on patient important outcomes, formal or informal modeling is needed to estimate effects. We describe the EtD criteria based on examples developed with GRADEpro (www.gradepro.org), GRADE's software that also provides interactive Summary of Findings Tables. CONCLUSION: EtD frameworks for developing recommendations and making decisions about tests lay out the sequential steps in reviewing and assessing the different types of evidence that need to be linked.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Summary of findings tables in systematic reviews are highly informative but require epidemiological training to be interpreted correctly. The usage of fishbone diagrams as graphical displays could offer researchers an effective approach to simplify content for readers with limited epidemiological training. In this paper we demonstrate how fishbone diagrams can be applied to systematic reviews and present the results of an initial user testing. METHODS: Findings from two systematic reviews were graphically depicted in the form of the fishbone diagram. To test the utility of fishbone diagrams compared with summary of findings tables, we developed and pilot-tested an online survey using Qualtrics. Respondents were randomized to the fishbone diagram or a summary of findings table presenting the same body of evidence. They answered questions in both open-ended and closed-answer formats; all responses were anonymous. Measures of interest focused on first and second impressions, the ability to find and interpret critical information, as well as user experience with both displays. We asked respondents about the perceived utility of fishbone diagrams compared to summary of findings tables. We analyzed quantitative data by conducting t-tests and comparing descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Based on real world systematic reviews, we provide two different fishbone diagrams to show how they might be used to display complex information in a clear and succinct manner. User testing on 77 students with basic epidemiological training revealed that participants preferred summary of findings tables over fishbone diagrams. Significantly more participants liked the summary of findings table than the fishbone diagram (71.8% vs. 44.8%; p < .01); significantly more participants found the fishbone diagram confusing (63.2% vs. 35.9%, p < .05) or indicated that it was difficult to find information (65.8% vs. 45%; p < .01). However, more than half of the participants in both groups were unable to find critical information and answer three respective questions correctly (52.6% in the fishbone group; 51.3% in the summary of findings group). CONCLUSIONS: Fishbone diagrams are compact visualizations that, theoretically, may prove useful for summarizing the findings of systematic reviews. Initial user testing, however, did not support the utility of such graphical displays.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Wikipedia, the free-content online encyclopaedia, contains many heavily accessed pages relating to healthcare. Cochrane systematic reviews contain much high-grade evidence but dissemination into Wikipedia has been slow. New skills are needed to both translate and relocate data from Cochrane reviews to implant into Wikipedia pages. This letter introduces a programme to greatly simplify the process of disseminating the summary of findings of Cochrane reviews into Wikipedia pages.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the application of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and the quality of evidence ratings in systematic reviews of complex interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study examined all 40 systematic reviews published in three Cochrane Review Groups from 2013 to May 2014: Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group (CDPLPG); Cochrane Public Health Group (CPHG); and Cochrane Depression, Anxiety, and Neurosis Group (CCDAN). The reviews were coded and classified into "complex" (n = 24) and "simple" (n = 16) intervention review groups based on the predefined complexity dimensions from the extant literature mapped into the PICOTS framework. All the data were analyzed in these two groups to help identify specific patterns of the GRADE ratings in the reviews of complex interventions. RESULTS: Outcomes of complex intervention reviews had higher proportions of "very low" quality of evidence ratings compared with those of simple intervention reviews (37.5% vs. 9.1% for the primary benefit outcomes) and were more frequently downgraded for inconsistency, performance bias, and study design. None of the outcomes of complex intervention reviews (0%) were given "high" GRADE ratings. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the GRADE assessment may not adequately describe the evidence base of complex interventions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To describe the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) interactive evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks for tests and test strategies for clinical, public health, or coverage decisions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: As part of the GRADE Working Group's DECIDE project, we conducted workshops, user testing with systematic review authors, guideline developers and other decision makers, and piloted versions of the EtD framework. RESULTS: EtD frameworks for tests share the structure, explicitness, and transparency of other EtD frameworks. They require specifying the purpose of the test, linked or related management, and the key outcomes of concern for different test results and subsequent management. The EtD criteria address test accuracy and assessments of the certainty of the additional evidence necessary for decision making. When there is no direct evidence of test effects on patient-important outcomes, formal or informal modeling is needed to estimate effects. We describe the EtD criteria based on examples developed with GRADEpro (www.gradepro.org), GRADE's software that also allows development and dissemination of interactive summary of findings tables. CONCLUSION: EtD frameworks for developing recommendations and making decisions about tests lay out the sequential steps in reviewing and assessing the different types of evidence that need to be linked.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) is widely used and reliable and accurate for assessing the certainty in the body of health evidence. The GRADE working group has provided detailed guidance for assessing the certainty in the body of evidence in systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTAs) and how to grade the strength of health recommendations. However, there is limited advice regarding how to maximize transparency of these judgments, in particular through explanatory footnotes or explanations in Summary of Findings tables and Evidence Profiles (GRADE evidence tables). METHODS: We conducted this study to define the essential attributes of useful explanations and to develop specific guidance for explanations associated with GRADE evidence tables. We used a sample of explanations according to their complexity, type of judgment involved, and appropriateness from a database of published GRADE evidence tables in Cochrane reviews and World Health Organization guidelines. We used an iterative process and group consensus to determine the attributes and develop guidance. RESULTS: Explanations in GRADE evidence tables should be concise, informative, relevant, easy to understand, and accurate. We provide general and domain-specific guidance to assist authors with achieving these desirable attributes in their explanations associated with GRADE evidence tables. CONCLUSIONS: Adhering to the general and GRADE domain-specific guidance should improve the quality of explanations associated with GRADE evidence tables, assist authors of systematic reviews, HTA reports, or guidelines with information that they can use in other parts of their evidence synthesis. This guidance will also support editorial evaluation of evidence syntheses using GRADE and provide a minimum quality standard of judgments across tables.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: The current format of summary of findings (SoFs) tables for presenting effect estimates and associated quality of evidence improve understanding and assist users finding key information in systematic reviews. Users of SoF tables have demanded alternative formats to express findings from systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a randomized controlled trial among systematic review users to compare the relative merits of a new format with the current formats of SoF tables regarding understanding, accessibility of information, satisfaction, and preference. Our primary goal was to show that the new format is not inferior to the current format. RESULTS: Of 390 potentially eligible subjects, 290 were randomized. Of seven items testing understanding, three showed similar results, two showed small differences favoring the new format, and two (understanding risk difference and quality of the evidence associated with a treatment effect) showed large differences favoring the new format [63% (95% confidence interval {CI}: 55, 71) and 62% (95% CI: 52, 71) more correct answers, respectively]. Respondents rated information in the alternative format as more accessible overall and preferred the new format over the current format. CONCLUSIONS: While providing at least similar levels of understanding for some items and increased understanding for others, users prefer the new format of SoF tables.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group has developed GRADE evidence profiles (EP) and summary of findings (SoF) tables to present evidence summaries in systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, and health technology assessments. Explanatory notes are used to explain choices and judgments in these summaries, for example, on rating of the quality of evidence. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic survey of the explanations in SoF tables in 132 randomly selected Cochrane Intervention reviews and in EPs of 10 guidelines. We analyzed the content of 1,291 explanations using a predefined list of criteria. RESULTS: Most explanations were used to describe or communicate results and to explain downgrading of the quality of evidence, in particular for risk of bias and imprecision. Addressing the source of baseline risk (observational data or control group risk) was often missing. For judgments about downgrading the quality of evidence, the percentage of informative explanations ranged between 41% (imprecision) and 79% (indirectness). CONCLUSION: We found that by and large explanations were informative but detected several areas for improvement (e.g., source of baseline risk and judgments on imprecision). Guidance about explanatory footnotes and comments will be provided in the last article in this series.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

UNLABELLED: Presenting continuous outcomes in Summary of Findings tables presents particular challenges to interpretation. When each study uses the same outcome measure, and the units of that measure are intuitively interpretable (e.g., duration of hospitalisation, duration of symptoms), presenting differences in means is usually desirable. When the natural units of the outcome measure are not easily interpretable, choosing a threshold to create a binary outcome and presenting relative and absolute effects become a more attractive alternative. When studies use different measures of the same construct, calculating summary measures requires converting to the same units of measurement for each study. The longest standing and most widely used approach is to divide the difference in means in each study by its standard deviation and present pooled results in standard deviation units (standardised mean difference). Disadvantages of this approach include vulnerability to varying degrees of heterogeneity in the underlying populations and difficulties in interpretation. Alternatives include presenting results in the units of the most popular or interpretable measure, converting to dichotomous measures and presenting relative and absolute effects, presenting the ratio of the means of intervention and control groups, and presenting the results in minimally important difference units. We outline the merits and limitations of each alternative and provide guidance for meta-analysts and guideline developers. KEY POINTS: Summary of Findings tables provide succinct presentations of evidence quality and magnitude of effects. Summarising the findings of continuous outcomes presents special challenges to interpretation that become daunting when individual trials use different measures for the same construct. The most commonly used approach to providing pooled estimates for different measures, presenting results in standard deviation units, has limitations related to both statistical properties and interpretability. Potentially preferable alternatives include presenting results in the natural units of the most popular measure, transforming into a binary outcome and presenting relative and absolute effects, presenting the ratio of the means of intervention and control groups, and presenting results in preestablished minimally important difference units.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Summary of Findings (SoF) tables present, for each of the seven (or fewer) most important outcomes, the following: the number of studies and number of participants; the confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence); and the best estimates of relative and absolute effects. Potentially challenging choices in preparing SoF tables include using direct evidence (which may have very few events) or indirect evidence (from a surrogate) as the best evidence for a treatment effect. If a surrogate is chosen, it must be labeled as substituting for the corresponding patient-important outcome. Another such choice is presenting evidence from low-quality randomised trials or high-quality observational studies. When in doubt, a reasonable approach is to present both sets of evidence; if the two bodies of evidence have similar quality but discrepant results, one would rate down further for inconsistency. For binary outcomes, relative risks (RRs) are the preferred measure of relative effect and, in most instances, are applied to the baseline or control group risks to generate absolute risks. Ideally, the baseline risks come from observational studies including representative patients and identifying easily measured prognostic factors that define groups at differing risk. In the absence of such studies, relevant randomised trials provide estimates of baseline risk. When confidence intervals (CIs) around the relative effect include no difference, one may simply state in the absolute risk column that results fail to show a difference, omit the point estimate and report only the CIs, or add a comment emphasizing the uncertainty associated with the point estimate. KEY STATEMENTS: Summary of Findings (SoF) tables provide succinct; easily digestible presentations of confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence) and magnitude of effects. SoF tables should present the seven (or fewer) most important outcomes. These outcomes must always be patient-important outcomes and never be surrogates, although surrogates can be used to estimate effects on patient-important outcomes. SoF tables should present the highest quality evidence. When the quality of two bodies of evidence (e.g., randomised trials and observational studies) is similar, SoF tables may include summaries from both. SoF tables should include both relative and absolute effect measures, and separate estimates of absolute effect for identifiable patient groups with substantially different baseline or control group risks.

Asunto(s)