Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: A synopsis is a brief consumer oriented summary of the findings of a Cochrane Review published with the review in lay language. While translating synopses into German, they appeared to have variable quality. In order to assess the need for a quality assurance process for synopses, the extent and type of problems should be analyzed.
Objectives: To identify the number of synopses with inconsistencies and errors and to document the most commonly encountered problems.
Methods: A non-random convenience sample (243 of 864 synopses from the approved synopses list ) were evaluated by a U.S. board certified physician. Synopses were sorted into four levels: - Level 1: synopsis and reviewers conclusion (RC) were read, no apparent problem was found - Level 2: synopsis and RC were read, for clarification further reading of full review was necessary - Level 3: level 2 plus non-critical error found - Level 4: level 2 plus critical error found
All level 3 and 4 errors were re-assessed in a multidisciplinary team which included physicians, methodologists, lay people and a communication specialist. Five major error categories were encountered: 1. Factual errors: Factual error in describing a medical condition in lay terms. 2. Discrepancy of facts: Discrepancy of stated facts between synopsis and review. 3. Discrepancy of strength of evidence: Discrepancy in strength of evidence between review and synopsis. 4. Wording error: Misspellings or use of slang. 5. Miscellaneous problems: Could not be classified as above.
Results: Of the 243 synopses included for translation, 58 (24%) had to be further evaluated by the assessment team (levels 3 or 4). Thirty-two (13%) had errors judged as critical (level 4) and were excluded from further translation. Twenty-six (11%) contained non-critical errors (level 3) and 40 (16%) would potentially require some rephrasing to enhance readability (level 2). The most commonly encountered error was a discrepancy of facts in 30 (12%) synopses, followed by a discrepancy in formulating the strength of evidence in 13 (5%) synopsis. Other problems included factual errors (7 synopses), wording errors (7 synopses) and miscellaneous problems (one synopsis).
Conclusion: A substantial number of synopses have errors and some do not have a sufficient quality for publication. The problems range from simple misspellings to critical errors, such as misrepresentations of facts which may cause readers to misinterpret the results of the review and draw wrong conclusions.
Implications: A quality improvement process should be implemented to ensure a minimum level of quality for all synopses before publication. This would include a more detailed guideline on how to write a synopsis and pre-testing of synopses for readability and factual correctness by a team including a consumer representative and a medically trained professional.
Objectives: To identify the number of synopses with inconsistencies and errors and to document the most commonly encountered problems.
Methods: A non-random convenience sample (243 of 864 synopses from the approved synopses list ) were evaluated by a U.S. board certified physician. Synopses were sorted into four levels: - Level 1: synopsis and reviewers conclusion (RC) were read, no apparent problem was found - Level 2: synopsis and RC were read, for clarification further reading of full review was necessary - Level 3: level 2 plus non-critical error found - Level 4: level 2 plus critical error found
All level 3 and 4 errors were re-assessed in a multidisciplinary team which included physicians, methodologists, lay people and a communication specialist. Five major error categories were encountered: 1. Factual errors: Factual error in describing a medical condition in lay terms. 2. Discrepancy of facts: Discrepancy of stated facts between synopsis and review. 3. Discrepancy of strength of evidence: Discrepancy in strength of evidence between review and synopsis. 4. Wording error: Misspellings or use of slang. 5. Miscellaneous problems: Could not be classified as above.
Results: Of the 243 synopses included for translation, 58 (24%) had to be further evaluated by the assessment team (levels 3 or 4). Thirty-two (13%) had errors judged as critical (level 4) and were excluded from further translation. Twenty-six (11%) contained non-critical errors (level 3) and 40 (16%) would potentially require some rephrasing to enhance readability (level 2). The most commonly encountered error was a discrepancy of facts in 30 (12%) synopses, followed by a discrepancy in formulating the strength of evidence in 13 (5%) synopsis. Other problems included factual errors (7 synopses), wording errors (7 synopses) and miscellaneous problems (one synopsis).
Conclusion: A substantial number of synopses have errors and some do not have a sufficient quality for publication. The problems range from simple misspellings to critical errors, such as misrepresentations of facts which may cause readers to misinterpret the results of the review and draw wrong conclusions.
Implications: A quality improvement process should be implemented to ensure a minimum level of quality for all synopses before publication. This would include a more detailed guideline on how to write a synopsis and pre-testing of synopses for readability and factual correctness by a team including a consumer representative and a medically trained professional.