LAUSR

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 non-inferiority trial (RCT) in the following systematic review (SR) users: researchers, clinical practice guideline developers, healthcare providers, policymakers, and knowledge transfer organizations to measure understanding, accessibility, satisfaction, and preference across the current GRADE SoF, an alternative GRADE SoF, or an adapted Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program SoF table. RESULTS 179 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 risk difference compared to the alternatives (<35% correct vs >85% correct). Participants reported increased satisfaction when SoF tables presented number needed to treat, 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. CONCLUSIONS The alternative GRADE SoF table is a promising format for SR users preferring a comprehensive presentation of SR results for single comparisons.