In the world of evidence-based research, summary of findings tables are key. They clearly show the results of systematic reviews. These tables share important details about the quality of evidence and how big the effects of interventions are1.
The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method is widely used. It checks the confidence in the results by looking at several factors. These include risk of bias, publication bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision1. This method sorts evidence into four levels: High, Moderate, Low, and Very Low1.
Key Takeaways
- Summary of findings tables present crucial information on the quality of evidence and the magnitude of intervention effects in systematic reviews.
- The GRADE approach assesses the confidence in synthesized results, ranking evidence into four levels: High, Moderate, Low, and Very Low.
- Factors like risk of bias, publication bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision can lead to downgrading of evidence quality.
- Large magnitude of effect, dose response, and consideration of plausible confounding factors can result in upgrading of evidence quality.
- Effective summary of findings tables improve the understanding and accessibility of systematic review findings for decision-makers.
Using the GRADE-based approach makes these tables clearer and more useful. They help decision-makers in many fields understand and use the findings of systematic reviews1. This is a big step in making evidence-based research better and more effective.
Introduction to Summary Findings Tables
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are key in combining research evidence. They help healthcare professionals and policymakers make informed decisions. Summary of findings tables are vital for presenting these findings clearly and concisely2.
Importance in Research
These tables provide a structured way to share important information. They include the quality of evidence, the size of effects, and data on health outcomes. They offer a quick and easy-to-understand overview, helping everyone involved make better decisions3.
Key Elements
A good summary of findings table has several key parts. It describes the population, the interventions, and the health outcomes. It also shows the effect sizes, the number of participants, and the evidence quality using the GRADE framework2.
GRADE Framework Overview
The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach is widely used. It evaluates evidence quality based on several factors. These include risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. It rates the evidence as High, Moderate, Low, or Very Low2.
This method helps readers understand the evidence’s certainty. It makes it easier to trust the findings2.
Summary of findings tables are crucial for evidence-based decision-making. They help advance research synthesis by presenting key elements clearly and in a standard format.
Understanding the GRADE Approach
The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and approach is a detailed method for evaluating healthcare research quality4. It looks at more than just study design. It also considers risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. This gives a deeper look into research findings4.
This method helps upgrade or downgrade evidence quality. It makes the assessment of evidence more reliable and clear4.
GRADE’s Role in Evidence Evaluation
The GRADE approach is used by top healthcare organizations like Cochrane, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)5. They use it for systematic reviews and clinical guideline development5. This shows how crucial the GRADE methodology is in healthcare decision-making5.
| Characteristic | Description |
|---|---|
| Explanation of GRADE | GRADE provides a systematic and clear way to rate evidence quality and guide recommendations in healthcare4. It started in 2000 to help evaluate evidence quality and guideline strength4. GRADE gives an evidence profile and a summary table for each clinical question outcome4. |
| GRADE’s Role in Evidence Evaluation | GRADE is recommended for systematic reviews, guidelines, and health technology assessments4. It grades each study outcome individually, not as a whole4. Randomized trials are seen as high or moderate quality evidence. Observational studies start as low or very low quality4. The quality can change based on factors like risk of bias and publication bias4. |
“The GRADE approach specifies four levels of quality for evidence assessment, and review authors can downgrade randomized trial evidence based on the presence of specific factors.”5
Structuring Summary Findings Tables
Making effective summary of findings tables is key in research reports. These tables should clearly show the study’s main points. This includes the research question, who was studied, what was done, and the results6.
Essential Components
A good summary of findings table has a few key parts:
- Research question
- Population
- Intervention
- Comparison
- Outcomes
- Estimated risks or means
- Relative effects
- Sample sizes
- Number of contributing studies
- GRADE quality assessment
- Explanatory comments
Recommended Layout
The best layout for summary of findings tables is often found in GRADEpro GDT software7. It has rows for each outcome and columns for the main info.
Visual Aids for Clarity
Summary of findings tables can use visual aids like icons and colors. These make it easier for readers to understand the data quickly.
“The use of tables to structure qualitative research findings is a valuable approach, as it helps organize and present the data in a clear and concise manner.”
By following these guidelines, researchers can share their findings clearly. This helps everyone understand and use the research results7.
Developing Clear and Concise Conclusions
Making clear and concise conclusions is key in summary tables. Precision is crucial to share the research findings accurately8. Good summarizing means focusing on main results, using simple language, and not over-reading the data8. But, mistakes like making things too complicated, missing important results, and ignoring data limits are common8.
Importance of Precision
Being precise in conclusions helps readers understand the study’s results and their importance. Data for research articles should be clear and organized, with qualitative data shown in charts or graphs8. The conclusions should match the research questions and give a brief summary of the main findings8.
Techniques for Summarizing
- Share the most important and relevant study results.
- Use simple, clear language to explain the evidence’s strength and direction8.
- Don’t over-interpret the data or guess beyond what’s supported.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
- Avoid making things too complicated and missing the main points.
- Make sure to cover all key results for a complete view.
- Always mention the data’s limitations to keep the conclusions credible.
The conclusions should be a clear, honest summary backed by the data and quality checks8. By steering clear of common mistakes and using good summarizing methods, researchers can share their findings clearly and effectively.
“A concise summary of the key findings is vital to ensure clarity and understanding.”8
| Key Aspect | Recommended Approach |
|---|---|
| Data Interpretation | Focus on the most relevant and impactful outcomes8 |
| Evidence Synthesis | Use clear, standardized language to convey the strength and direction of the evidence8 |
| Research Conclusions | Avoid over-interpretation and acknowledge limitations of the data8 |
By following these guidelines, researchers can write clear and concise conclusions. These conclusions will accurately reflect the research and help readers understand the study’s findings8.
Evaluating Evidence Quality
It’s key to know the quality of evidence when we look at research and make choices. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework helps us do this. It gives a clear way to check how strong and reliable the evidence is9.
GRADE Levels of Evidence
GRADE has four levels of evidence quality: High, Moderate, Low, and Very Low10. The first level is based on study design. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) start as High, while observational studies are Low10.
Factors Influencing Quality Ratings
Many things can change how good the evidence is. Things that can make it worse include bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias10. But, big effects, a clear dose-response, and unlikely confounding can make it better10.
The final quality score shows how sure we are about the findings. The GRADE method makes sure the score matches the evidence’s strength10.
“Evidence quality assessment is a crucial step in the systematic review process, providing a clear and transparent framework for evaluating the reliability of research findings.” –
Incorporating Stakeholder Feedback
Getting feedback from stakeholders is key to making summary findings tables effective. Stakeholders include patients, doctors, policymakers, and others who help make sure the findings are relevant and easy to understand11.
Identifying Stakeholders
Finding the right stakeholders is the first step. Researchers need to look at different viewpoints to get a full picture of the evidence11.
Gathering and Analyzing Input
There are many ways to collect feedback, like talking to people, doing surveys, or holding focus groups12. By using this feedback, the tables can be more useful and meet the needs of the audience11.
A study showed that 58 researchers and 51 partners worked together, with 387 examples of how stakeholders influenced the work11. The researchers found five ways stakeholders could influence: by working together, changing direction, making things clearer, agreeing with the findings, or having little impact11. Also, 306 examples of influence had a direct effect on the study, and 50 researchers and 41 partners reported being influenced in more than one way11.
Using stakeholder feedback can make summary findings tables better. By finding the right people to talk to and listening to their opinions, researchers can make sure their work is useful and helps make informed decisions11.
“Tailoring surveys can provide actionable and insightful data collection.”12
The power interest grid helps sort stakeholders by their power and interest12. Knowing how to engage with stakeholders can help researchers use feedback better. This makes the summary findings tables more valuable11.
Case Studies of Effective Tables
Making summary findings tables is key to good research presentation. Let’s look at two examples that show how to design and analyze tables well.
Example 1: Clinical Trials
In clinical trials, tables focus on important outcomes like death rates, sickness, and quality of life13. They should show how well treatments work and use the GRADE framework to judge the evidence13. This makes it easy for readers to understand the study’s main points13.
Example 2: Public Health Studies
Public health studies look at big picture outcomes, how well treatments work, and long-term effects14. Their tables highlight key results, like changes in disease rates and quality of life14. Adding GRADE quality assessments makes the presentation stronger and helps plan future studies14.
Good summary tables are organized, use GRADE, and present findings clearly1314. By doing this, researchers share their findings well and help move their fields forward.
“Creating well-designed summary findings tables is an essential skill for researchers, as it enables them to present their work in a clear, concise, and impactful manner.”
Using the GRADE framework and focusing on clear visuals, researchers make their tables powerful tools. They help spread knowledge and guide future research1314.
Tools and Software for Table Creation
Researchers have many tools to make summary of findings tables. GRADEpro GDT (Guideline Development Tool) is a top choice for creating GRADE summary of findings tables15. It helps make detailed evidence profiles and interactive tables15.
Recommended Software Solutions
Other tools like RevMan can also help with summary findings tables16. Creately’s table chart maker makes it easy to design and customize tables15. This makes research data easy to understand and share15.
Features to Look For
When picking software, look for key features. These include inputting study data, calculating effect sizes, and assessing evidence quality15. The software should also let many researchers work together on the same table15.
It’s also important to find software that works well with other tools. Having many template options can make creating tables easier.
| Software | Key Features | Pricing |
|---|---|---|
| GRADEpro GDT |
|
Free for non-commercial use |
| Creately |
|
Freemium model with various paid plans |
| RevMan (Review Manager) |
|
Free for Cochrane authors and review groups |
Using these tools, researchers can make clear and attractive summary of findings tables. These tables help share research insights and evidence synthesis1516.
Common Mistakes in Summary Findings Tables
Creating effective summary findings tables is key for sharing research insights and guiding decisions. However, several common pitfalls can make these tables unclear and less useful. One major issue is overcomplicating information by adding too many outcomes or too much detail. This can confuse the reader and hide the main findings. Researchers need to find a balance between giving enough data and keeping it concise17.
Another mistake is not providing enough context for understanding the results. Summary findings tables should come with clear explanations of the research question, setting, and methodology. Without this context, readers may find it hard to see the relevance and use of the findings17.
- Not using GRADE criteria consistently: Following the GRADE framework is key for a standardized and clear evaluation of evidence quality. Not using GRADE criteria the same way for all outcomes can make the summary findings less credible.
- Leaving out important outcomes: Summary tables must cover all relevant outcomes from the research protocol. Leaving out key outcomes, even if data is missing, can give a misleading view of the evidence.
- Not explaining quality assessments well: It’s important to clearly explain why each outcome was given a certain quality rating. This helps readers understand the strength of the evidence.
To avoid these mistakes, researchers must be careful in planning, presenting data, and following GRADE guidelines. By focusing on clarity, conciseness, and giving enough context, researchers can make summary findings tables that clearly share insights and help with evidence-based decisions17.
“The goal of a summary of findings table is to provide a concise and transparent summary of the key findings from a systematic review or meta-analysis. Achieving this goal requires careful attention to detail and a commitment to clarity.”
| Outcome | Relative Risk Reduction | Certainty of Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Daily oral iron supplementation vs no supplementation | 50% (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.56)18 | Low18 |
| Daily oral iron and folic acid supplementation vs no supplementation | 91% (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.17)18 | Very low18 |
| Mean difference in hemoglobin levels: Iron supplementation vs no supplementation | 9.75 higher (95% CI 9.57 to 9.93)18 | Low18 |
| Mean difference in hemoglobin levels: Iron and folic acid supplementation vs no supplementation | 13.4 higher (95% CI 11.09 to 15.72)18 | Very low18 |
The table shows the key findings from comparing daily oral iron supplementation with and without iron for iron deficiency anemia in young people. It shows iron and iron-folic acid supplements greatly reduce anemia risk and improve hemoglobin levels, though evidence certainty varies18.
Creating effective summary findings tables requires understanding the research context, being transparent and concise, and avoiding common pitfalls. By tackling these challenges, researchers can share meaningful insights that guide evidence-based decisions17.
Best Practices for Presentation
Sharing research findings through summary tables is key for data visualization, research communication, and presenting evidence. To make your summary tables impactful, follow these best practices:
Formatting Guidelines
Keep all tables consistent in formatting, with clear labels and the right use of visuals. Tables should flow logically, making them easy to read and understand. In qualitative research studies, using tables can make findings more trustworthy and clear.19
- Use clear and concise column headers to guide the reader’s understanding.
- Demographics tables in qualitative studies can provide detailed information on each participant, including their gender, age, and current living situation.19
- Initial codes tables in thematic analysis can showcase quotes from the data that exemplify each code, allowing readers to evaluate the correspondence between data and findings.19
- Tables grouping initial codes into themes help in illustrating the logic behind thematic analysis, offering readers insights into the underlying interpretations.19
- Tables presenting the groups of codes that form each theme allow for transparency and assessment of the trustworthiness of the thematic analysis.19
- The presentation of themes that answer each research question through tables helps in maintaining alignment and effectively communicating the key findings.19
Importance of Accessibility
Make sure your summary findings tables are easy for everyone to access. This includes those without research background. Use colors, font sizes, and layout to improve readability. Also, ensure electronic versions work well with screen readers and other tools for accessibility.
“Effective data visualization and presentation are crucial for amplifying the impact of your research findings.”
Future Trends in Summary Findings Tables
The world of research is changing fast, and so are summary findings tables. Interactive digital tools are becoming more popular. They let readers dive deeper into the data and find new insights. Also, AI and machine learning might make it easier to analyze data and check its quality20.
There’s also a shift in how we report data. We’re focusing more on being clear, using outcomes that matter to patients, and using new types of data. This could lead to more standard ways of reporting, making it easier to compare and combine research20.
Increased Use of Technology
Technology is set to play a bigger role in summary findings tables. Interactive digital tools will let users explore data in new ways. AI and machine learning could also make analyzing data faster and more accurate20.
Evolving Standards in Reporting
As research and data reporting evolve, so will the standards for summary findings tables. We’ll see more focus on being clear, using outcomes that matter to patients, and using new data types20. There’s also a push for more standard reporting across different fields. This will help make research easier to compare and combine20.
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Interactive Digital Formats | Enable users to explore data in greater depth and gain more nuanced insights20. |
| Machine Learning and AI Integration | Assist in streamlining the evidence synthesis process and enhancing data quality assessment20. |
| Transparency and Patient-Important Outcomes | Increased focus on improving transparency and incorporating patient-important outcomes more consistently20. |
| Adaptability to New Data Sources | Accommodate and analyze emerging data types, such as real-world data20. |
| Standardized Reporting Practices | Move towards more consistent reporting standards across different research fields20. |
“The future of summary findings tables lies in their ability to evolve alongside the advancements in research innovation and evidence synthesis. By embracing technological solutions and adapting to changing reporting standards, these essential tools will continue to play a crucial role in communicating research findings effectively.”
Discover How Editverse Can Elevate Your Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
In the world of academic research, quality and transparency are key. Editverse, a leading provider, offers solutions for meta-analyses and systematic reviews. They help researchers succeed in these critical areas21.
Introduction to Editverse PhD Expert Services
Editverse’s team of PhD experts offers tailored help for meta-analyses and systematic reviews. They use their deep knowledge to guide researchers from start to finish21.
Comprehensive Support for Meta-Analysis and Systematic Reviews
Editverse provides a wide range of services. They help with everything from planning to publishing studies. This includes developing protocols, searching literature, extracting data, and analyzing it21.
Expert Guidance from Human PhD-Level Professionals
At Editverse, PhD experts offer personalized guidance. They work closely with researchers, using their knowledge to provide tailored solutions21.
Tailored Solutions for Researchers
Editverse knows every research project is different. They offer customized solutions to meet each client’s needs. Whether it’s a meta-analysis or systematic review, they’re ready to help21.
By working with Editverse, researchers can improve their work. This helps advance knowledge in their fields21.
“Editverse’s comprehensive support and expert guidance have been invaluable in helping us navigate the complexities of our systematic review. Their personalized approach and attention to detail have been instrumental in the success of our research project.”
– Dr. Emily Lowe, Researcher at XYZ University
Key Features of Editverse Services
Editverse offers full support for researchers doing meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Their team helps you from the start to the end, ensuring your work gets published22.
Rigorous Quality Assurance for Accurate Results
Editverse aims to provide top-notch research outputs. They have a strict quality check to make sure your work meets the highest standards22. Their medical editors have published in many important journals and review for SCI/SCIE journals22.
Personalized Support for Your Unique Research Needs
Editverse knows every research project is different. They offer customized support to fit your needs and field. Their team has deep knowledge in various areas, including GRADE methodology and creating summary tables22.
They offer three editing services: Advanced Scientific Editing ($0.30 per word), Popular Manuscript Editing ($0.05 per word), and Limited Corrections Manuscript Editing ($0.03 per word)23. Each service level provides the right amount of help for your project and budget23.
No matter the service you pick, Editverse promises manuscripts ready for publication. Their experts ensure your work meets top standards, following guidelines from respected groups23.
With Editverse, your research gets the research quality control, publication support, and customized research assistance it needs. This boosts your chances of getting published in top journals2223.
Why Choose Editverse ?
Editverse is a leader in academic publishing, known for its deep knowledge in many research areas. They help with meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Their team of PhD experts will make your research shine24.
At Editverse, quality and precision are top priorities. They use strict methods and quality checks to ensure top-notch work. This has made them a reliable choice for researchers globally25.
With a worldwide presence and deep research community knowledge, Editverse is the top choice for publishing support. They offer custom solutions for each client. This helps researchers feel confident in publishing their work26.
| Metric | BIDMC Cohort | UK Biobank Cohort |
|---|---|---|
| Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) | 0.65 (0.65 – 0.66) | 0.62 (0.62 – 0.63) |
| Coefficient of Determination (R2) | 0.43 (0.42 – 0.43) | 0.39 (0.38 – 0.40) |
The table shows how well Editverse’s AI-ECG-BMI model works. It shows strong connections and predictions in both BIDMC and UK Biobank studies26.
With unmatched expertise, a strong focus on quality, and a global presence, Editverse is the best choice for researchers. Let Editverse help you navigate scholarly publishing and open up new research opportunities242526.
Get Started Today
Researchers looking for research services, meta-analysis support, and systematic review assistance can check out www.editverse.com27. The site offers detailed service descriptions, success stories, and ways to get in touch for a personalized chat27. It’s a great place to see how Editverse can help improve your research and reviews.
Visit www.editverse.com for More Information
Editverse offers top-notch research services to help researchers publish in leading journals27. The GRADE method for evaluating evidence is used by over 20 groups, like the World Health Organization27. Editverse’s PhD-level experts can help you create top-quality summary of findings tables using GRADE, making your work stand out.
| Key Statistic | Value |
|---|---|
| Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews as of Issue 10, 2011 | 4,791 Cochrane systematic reviews, with 488 relating to CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) |
| The Cochrane Collaboration | Involves more than 28,000 contributors from 110 countries, most of whom are volunteer researchers |
| Time required to prepare each Summary of Findings (SoF) table for CAM-related Cochrane reviews | Generally 3 to 4 days of an experienced methodologist’s time |
“The Cochrane Collaboration involves more than 28,000 contributors from 110 countries, most of whom are volunteer researchers.”27
To find out more about Editverse’s help with meta-analysis and systematic review, visit www.editverse.com or reach out to our team today.
Discover How Editverse Can Elevate Your Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
Editverse is a top provider of expert analysis services. They aim to improve the quality and impact of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. They offer a wide range of PhD-level services to help researchers from start to finish.
Introduction to Editverse PhD Expert Services
Editverse’s team of PhD experts has deep knowledge and a strong commitment to excellence. They ensure researchers get the support they need to publish high-quality work.
Comprehensive Support for Meta-Analysis and Systematic Reviews
Editverse helps with every step of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. They assist with study design, data extraction, statistical analysis, and reporting. Each service is tailored to fit the needs of each project.
Expert Guidance from Human PhD-Level Professionals
Editverse’s PhD experts offer personalized guidance and support. They focus on each researcher, ensuring they get the help they need for success in publishing.
Tailored Solutions for Researchers
Every research project is different, and Editverse knows it. They create custom solutions for each researcher’s unique challenges. This personal touch helps researchers reach their publication goals.
See how Editverse can boost your meta-analysis and systematic review with their research enhancement, expert analysis, and publishing support282129.
Key Features of Editverse Services
Editverse provides a wide range of services to help researchers at every stage. They assist from the start to the end, making sure your work flows smoothly. This approach ensures your research is top-notch30.
Their quality checks are strict, making sure your findings are correct and reliable. A team of PhD experts carefully checks your work. They follow the GRADE framework to the letter30.
Editverse tailors its services to fit each researcher’s needs. They offer help with meta-analysis, literature reviews, and more. Their expertise can take your research to the next level.
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| End-to-End Assistance | Comprehensive support from concept to publication, optimizing the research process. |
| Rigorous Quality Assurance | Meticulous review by PhD-level experts, ensuring accurate and reliable results. |
| Personalized Support | Tailored solutions to meet the unique needs of each researcher, including expertise in GRADE methodology and summary findings tables. |
Editverse is dedicated to making research better. They focus on quality, meta-analysis, and custom systematic reviews. They are a reliable partner for researchers aiming to make a big impact.
“Editverse has been instrumental in helping us navigate the complexities of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Their personalized support and attention to detail have been invaluable in achieving our research goals.”
– Dr. Emily Wilkins, Epidemiologist
Why Choose Editverse ?
Editverse stands out because of its extensive expertise across diverse research domains. They offer full support for all kinds of meta-analyses and systematic reviews22. Their commitment to excellence and precision shows in their detailed methods and strict quality checks22.
Researchers from all over the world trust Editverse. They have earned a strong reputation for top-notch support. This support helps advance evidence-based research22.
Editverse’s global research support network and PhD-level experts ensure your work is done with care and accuracy22. They have a history of publishing in leading journals. This makes them ready to handle the challenges of academic publishing and help you reach your goals22.
Working with Editverse means you get a full range of services tailored just for you, from start to finish22. Their personalized service and focus on research expertise selection and excellence make them the go-to choice for researchers22.
FAQ
What are summary of findings tables and why are they important in research?
What are the key elements included in a summary of findings table?
What is the GRADE approach and how does it assess the quality of evidence?
How should summary of findings tables be structured for clarity and ease of understanding?
What are the common pitfalls to avoid when developing conclusions for summary of findings tables?
How can stakeholder feedback be incorporated to improve summary of findings tables?
What are some common mistakes to avoid when creating summary of findings tables?
What are the best practices for presenting summary of findings tables?
How can Editverse’s specialized services help with meta-analyses and systematic reviews?
Source Links
- https://nursing.lsuhsc.edu/JBI/docs/Grade/Summary_of_Findings_Tables_for_Joanna_Briggs_Institute_Systematic_Reviews-V3.pdf
- https://cidg.cochrane.org/sites/cidg.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Introduction to preparing SOF tables for authors_Feb2010.pdf
- https://www.cochrane.no/summary-findings-tables
- https://chs.libguides.com/c.php?g=1149014&p=9263649
- https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_12/12_2_1_the_grade_approach.htm
- https://www.unr.edu/writing-speaking-center/writing-speaking-resources/chs-summary-table
- https://www.andreajbingham.com/resources-tips-and-tricks/structuring-a-qualitative-findings-section
- https://www.mwediting.com/how-to-write-findings-of-a-research-paper/
- https://libguides.rutgers.edu/c.php?g=337288&p=3728472
- https://chs.libguides.com/c.php?g=1149014&p=9277946
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8993962/
- https://university.sopact.com/article/stakeholder-feedback
- https://ebn.bmj.com/content/24/2/32
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7772975/
- https://creately.com/lp/table-chart-maker/
- https://documentation.cochrane.org/display/RMHELP/’Summary of findings’ tables linked with GRADEpro GDT
- https://blog.writefull.com/how-to-present-tables-and-figures-in-your-paper/
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK602197/
- https://precisionconsultingblog.com/presenting-your-qualitative-analysis-findings-tables-to-include-in-chapter-4/
- https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13012-022-01243-2
- https://editverse.com/complete-your-prisma-2020-checklist-tips-example/
- https://editverse.com/
- https://editverse.com/manuscript-editing-services/
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10058444/
- https://formative.jmir.org/2023/1/e49239
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-024-01170-0
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3833472/
- https://www.academia.edu/7645569/Trb
- https://www.zippia.com/brigham-women-s-hospital-careers-40901/jobs/research-fellow/
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10264777/