Table 4 Satisfaction with level of involvement in systematic review steps (n = 17)
Systematic review steps | Yes n (%) | No n (%) | N/A n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
1. Screen titles and abstracts of citations (n = 17) | 14 (82) | 0 (0) | 3 (18) |
Researchers (n = 10) | 8 (80) | 0 (0) | 2 (20) |
Clinician-researchers (n = 4) | 3 (75) | 0 (0) | 1 (25) |
Patients/consumers (n = 3) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
2. Reconcile conflicts from title/abstract screen (n = 17) | 13 (76) | 1 (6) | 3 (18) |
Researchers (n = 10) | 7 (70) | 1 (10) | 2 (20) |
Clinician-researchers (n = 4) | 3 (75) | 0 (0) | 1 (25) |
Patients/consumers (n = 3) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
3. Screen full text of citations (n = 17) | 13 (76) | 1 (6) | 3 (18) |
Researchers (n = 10) | 7 (70) | 1 (10) | 2 (20) |
Clinician-researchers (n = 4) | 3 (75) | 0 (0) | 1 (25) |
Patients/consumers (n = 3) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
4. Reconcile conflicts from full text screen (n = 17) | 13 (76) | 0 (0) | 4 (24) |
Researchers (n = 10) | 7 (70) | 0 (0) | 3 (30) |
Clinician-researchers (n = 4) | 3 (75) | 0 (0) | 1 (25) |
Patients/consumers (n = 3) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
5. Review interventions to verify they meet minimal definition of a patient decision aid (n = 17) | 14 (82) | 0 (0) | 3 (18) |
Researchers (n = 10) | 8 (80) | 0 (0) | 2 (20) |
Clinician-researchers (n = 4) | 3 (75) | 0 (0) | 1 (25) |
Patients/consumers (n = 3) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
6. Search grey literature sources (n = 17) | 11 (65) | 2 (12) | 4 (24) |
Researchers (n = 10) | 5 (50) | 2 (20) | 3 (30) |
Clinician-researchers (n = 4) | 3 (75) | 0 (0) | 1 (25) |
Patients/consumers (n = 3) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
7. Extract data into data collection forms (n = 17) | 14 (82) | 0 (0) | 3 (18) |
Researchers (n = 10) | 9 (90) | 0 (0) | 1 (10) |
Clinician-researchers (n = 4) | 3 (75) | 0 (0) | 1 (25) |
Patients/consumers (n = 3) | 2 (67) | 0 (0) | 1 (33) |
8. Assess risk of bias of included studies (n = 17) | 13 (76) | 1 (6) | 3 (18) |
Researchers (n = 10) | 8 (80) | 1 (10) | 1 (10) |
Clinician-researchers (n = 4) | 3 (75) | 0 (0) | 1 (25) |
Patients/consumers (n = 3) | 2 (67) | 0 (0) | 1 (33) |
9. Assist with interpretation of the results of the analysis (n = 17) | 17 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Researchers (n = 10) | 10 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Clinician-researchers (n = 4) | 4 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Patients/consumers (n = 3) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
10. Assess GRADE evidence ratings (n = 17) | 14 (82) | 1 (6) | 2 (12) |
Researchers (n = 10) | 8 (80) | 1 (10) | 1 (10) |
Clinician-researchers (n = 4) | 3 (75) | 0 (0) | 1 (25) |
Patients/consumers (n = 3) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
11. Discuss the network meta-analysis (n = 17)* | 13 (76) | 3 (18) | 0 (0) |
Researchers (n = 10) | 6 (60) | 3 (30) | 0 (0) |
Clinician-researchers (n = 4) | 4 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Patients/consumers (n = 3) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
12. Provide feedback on the draft systematic review article (n = 17) | 17 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Researchers (n = 10) | 10 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Clinician-researchers (n = 4) | 4 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Patients/consumers (n = 3) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |