Cochrane · systematic review · CD004398
Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes
Giguère, A, Zomahoun, HT, Carmichael, P-H, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
9
current version
GRADE rated
9
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 6 · 66.7%Low 1 · 11.1%Moderate 2 · 22.2%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyPrinted educational material vs. no intervention
Population: healthcare professionals (physicians and allied health professionals)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Healthcare professionals' practice outcome measured using dichotomous variablesAbsolute risk difference across various outcomes Printed educational material vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 16 studies · 3963 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
Healthcare professionals' practice outcome measured using continuous variablesStandardised mean difference across various outcomes Printed educational material vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 1631 participants | Very low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Healthcare professionals' practice outcome measured using continuous variables Printed educational material vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Healthcare professionals' practice outcome Standardised median change in slope across various outcomes Printed educational material vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 35 studies · 54 participants | Very low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Patient health outcome measured using dichotomous variables Absolute risk difference across various outcomes Printed educational material vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 935015 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Patient health outcome measured using continuous variables Standardised mean difference across various outcomes Printed educational material vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 6737 participants | Very low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Patient health outcome Standardised median change in slope across various outcomes Printed educational material vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 8 studies · 12 participants | Very low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Printed educational material only versus single intervention
Population: healthcare professionals (physicians)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Healthcare professionals' practice outcome measured using dichotomous variablesAbsolute risk difference across various outcomes Printed educational material only vs single intervention | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 139 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Healthcare professionals' practice outcome measured using continuous variablesStandardised mean difference Printed educational material only vs single intervention | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 32 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Printed educational material vs. no intervention
Population: healthcare professionals (physicians in 9/10 studies)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Categorical measure of professional practice Absolute risk difference across various outcomes Printed educational material vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 294937 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Continuous measure of professional practice Standardised mean difference across various outcomes Printed educational material vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 297 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |