An evaluation of harvest plots to display results of meta-analyses in overviews of reviews: a cross-sectional study

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Lisa Hartling³  Denise Thomson³  Ricardo M. Fernandes²  Katrina Williams¹  Aireen Wingert³  Katelynn Crick⁴ 

[1] Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Developmental Medicine, Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne and Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Edmonton, Canada;Department of Pediatrics, Santa Maria Hospital, Lisbon Academic Medical Centre and Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal;Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, 4-472 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405-87 Avenue, Edmonton T6G 1C9, Alberta, Canada;School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

关键词: Harvest plots;    Data presentation;    Graphs;    Knowledge synthesis;    Overviews of reviews;    Systematic reviews;    Meta-analysis;   

Others  :  1230336
DOI  :  10.1186/s12874-015-0084-0

 received in 2015-07-18, accepted in 2015-10-15,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Harvest plots are used to graphically display evidence from complex and diverse studies or results. Overviews of reviews bring together evidence from two or more systematic reviews. Our objective was to determine the feasibility of using harvest plots to depict complex results of overviews of reviews.

Methods

We conducted a survey of 279 members of Cochrane Child Health to determine their preferences for graphical display of data, and their understanding of data presented in the form of harvest plots. Preferences were rated on a scale of 0–100 (100 most preferred) and tabulated using descriptive statistics. Knowledge and accuracy were assessed by tabulating the number of correctly answered questions for harvest plots and traditional data summary tables; t-tests were used to compare responses between formats.

Results

53 individuals from 7 countries completed the survey (19 %): 60 % were females; the majority had an MD (38 %), PhD (47 %), or equivalent. Respondents had published a median of 3 systematic reviews (inter-quartile range 1 to 8). There were few differences between harvest plots and tables in terms of being: well-suited to summarize and display results from meta-analysis (52 vs. 56); easy to understand (53 vs. 51); and, intuitive (49 vs. 44). Harvest plots were considered more aesthetically pleasing (56 vs. 44, p = 0.03). 40 % felt the harvest plots could be used in conjunction with tables to display results from meta-analyses; additionally, 45 % felt the harvest plots could be used with some improvement. There was no statistically significant difference in percentage of knowledge questions answered correctly for harvest plots compared with tables. When considering both types of data display, 21 % of knowledge questions were answered incorrectly.

Conclusions

Neither harvest plots nor standard summary tables were ranked highly in terms of being easy to understand or intuitive, reflecting that neither format is ideal to summarize the results of meta-analyses in overviews of reviews. Responses to knowledge questions showed some misinterpretation of results of meta-analyses. Reviewers should ensure that messages are clearly articulated and summarized in the text to avoid misinterpretation.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Crick et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994; 309:597-9.
• [2]Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci. 2012; 7:50. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for SystematicReviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Availablefrom. www. cochrane-handbook.org webcite
• [4]Glantz S. Primer of Biostatistics, Seventh Edition. New York:Mcgraw-Hill; 2011.
• [5]Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Fernandes RM. Systematic reviews, overviews of reviews and comparative effectiveness reviews: a discussion of approaches to knowledge synthesis. Evid Based Child Health. 2014; 9:486-94.
• [6]Thomson D, Foisy M, Oleszczuk M, Wingert A, Chisholm A, Hartling L. Overview of reviews in child health: evidence synthesis and the knowledge base for a specific population. Evid Based Child Health. 2013; 8:3-10.
• [7]Schild AH, Voracek M. Less is less: a systematic review of graph use in meta‐analyses. Res Synthesis Methods. 2013; 4:209-219.
• [8]Hildon Z, Allwood D, Black N. Impact of format and content of visual display of data on comprehension, choice and preference: a systematic review. International J Qual Health Care. 2012; 24:55-64.
• [9]Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren JB. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006; 13:608-18.
• [10]Hibbard JH, Peters E, Slovic P, Finucane ML, Tusler M. Making health care quality reports easier to use. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2001; 27:591-604.
• [11]Ogilvie D, Fayter D, Petticrew M, Sowden A, Thomas S, Whitehead M et al.. The harvest plot: a method for synthesising evidence about the differential effects of interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008; 8:8. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Crowther M, Avenell A, MacLennan G, Mowatt G. A further use for the Harvest plot: a novel method for the presentation of data synthesis. Res Synthesis Methods. 2011; 2:79-83.
• [13]Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009; 42:377-381.
• [14]Dillman DA. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method -- 2007 Update with New Internet, Visual, and Mixed-Mode Guide. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2011.
• [15]Fernandes RM, Oleszczuk M, Woods CR, Rowe BH, Cates CJ, Hartling L. The Cochrane Library and safety of systemic corticosteroids for acute respiratory conditions in children: an overview of reviews. Evid Based Child Health. 2014; 9:733-47.
• [16]Kozyrskyj AL, Klassen TP, Moffatt M, Harvey K. Short-course antibiotics foracute otitis media. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 9. Art. No.: CD001095. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD001095.pub2.
• [17]Elting LS, Martin CG, Cantor SB, Rubenstein EB. Influence of data display formats on physician investigators' decisions to stop clinical trials: prospective trial with repeated measures. BMJ. 1999; 318:1527-31.
• [18]Schild AHE, Voracek M. Finding your way out of the forest without a trail of bread crumbs: development and evaluation of two novel displays of forest plots. Res Synthesis Methods. 2015; 6:74-86.
• [19]Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992; 92:121-4.