CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 282Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Sciences Research and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing and presenting summaries of evidence in Cochrane Reviews

Open access
Langendam, Miranda W, Akl, Elie A, Dahm, Philipp, Glasziou, Paul, Guyatt, Gordon, Schünemann, Holger J·2013·Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-2-81PMC PMC3849859
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Cochrane Reviews are intended to help providers, practitioners and patients make informed decisions about health care. The goal of the Cochrane Applicability and Recommendation Methods Group (ARMG) is to develop approaches, strategies and guidance that facilitate the uptake of information from Cochrane Reviews and their use by a wide audience with specific focus on developers of recommendations and on healthcare decision makers. This paper is part of a series highlighting developments in systematic review methodology in the 20 years since the establishment of The Cochrane Collaboration, and its aim is to present current work and highlight future developments in assessing and presenting summaries of evidence, with special focus on Summary of Findings (SoF) tables and Plain Language Summaries.A SoF table provides a concise and transparent summary of the key findings of a review in a tabular format. Several studies have shown that SoF tables improve accessibility and understanding of Cochrane Reviews.The ARMG and GRADE Working Group are working on further development of the SoF tables, for example by evaluating the degree of acceptable flexibility beyond standard presentation of SoF tables, developing SoF tables for diagnostic test accuracy reviews and interactive SoF tables (iSoF).The plain language summary (PLS) is the other main building block for dissemination of review results to end-users. The PLS aims to summarize the results of a review in such a way that health care consumers can readily understand them. Current efforts include the development of a standardized language to describe statistical results, based on effect size and quality of supporting evidence.Producing high quality PLS and SoF tables and making them compatible and linked would make it easier to produce dissemination products targeting different audiences (for example, providers, health policy makers, guideline developers).Current issues of debate include optimal presentation formats of SoF tables, the training required to produce SoF tables, and the extent to which the authors of Cochrane Reviews should provide explicit guidance to target audiences of patients, clinicians and policy-makers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/2046-4053-2-81

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Snapshot of a Summary of Findings (SoF) table.
Figure 1 Snapshot of a Summary of Findings (SoF) table.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Snapshot of an interactive Summary of Findings (iSoF) table.
Figure 2 Snapshot of an interactive Summary of Findings (iSoF) table.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Santesso N, Glenton C, Rader T, Strømme-Nilsen E, Moja L, Pardo JP, Ciapponi A, Schünemann H: A New Format for Plain Language Summaries: Does It Improve Understanding, and is It Useful and Preferable? A Randomized Trial. 2009, Singapore: Cochrane Colloquium, 17
  2. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JP, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH, on behalf of the Cochrane Applicability and Recommendations Methods Group and the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group: Chapter 11: Presenting results and ‘summary of findings’ tables. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. Edited by: Higgins JPT, Green S. 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration, Available from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 282

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Langendam, M. W., Akl, E. A., Dahm, P., Glasziou, P., Guyatt, G., & Schünemann, H. J.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • American University of Beirut (LB)
  • University of Florida Health (US)
  • Bond University (AU)
  • McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Langendam, Miranda W
ORCID
Venue
Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-09-23
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
81-81
ISSN
2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/2046-4053-2-81
PMC
PMC3849859
OpenAlex
W2122450633
Cited by
282
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4
FWCI
21.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • e-publications@bond (Bond University) (submittedVersion)
  • Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
summary of findings tables, plain language summaries, evidence summaries, effect size reporting, quality of evidence, guideline development, healthcare decision-making
MeSH terms
Humans, Information Services, Review Literature as Topic, Technology Transfer, Evidence-Based Medicine, Information Dissemination, Research Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review