Question · asked by 1 review
Printed educational material vs no intervention: Patient outcomes (continuous)
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Printed educational material vs no intervention Patient health outcome measured using continuous variables Standardised mean difference across various outcomes · healthcare professionals (physicians and allied health professionals) Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 6737 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.