Table 2.
Summary of included studies
| Total | Self-rating of understanding | Accuracy definition | Bayesian reasoning | Presentation format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of studies | 24 | 2 | 6 | 22 | 5 |
| Study design | |||||
| Single group | 17 | 2 | 6 | 14 | 1 |
| RCT | 6 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 3 |
| Multiple groups, unclear allocation | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Participants | |||||
| Medical students | 6 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 1 |
| Mixed physicians | 17 | 2 | 3 | 15 | 2 |
| Single specialty | 8 | 0 | 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Other | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 |
| How was the diagnostic information presented? | |||||
| Vignette/case study | 6 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 2 |
| Population scenario | 13 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 3 |
| Simulated patient | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| 2×2 table | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Research study extract | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| No information/unclear | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| How was understanding assessed? | |||||
| Questionnaire (multiple choice) | 7 | 0 | 3 | 7 | 0 |
| Questionnaire (open ended) | 16 | 0 | 2 | 15 | 5 |
| Interview | 5 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| Unclear | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Type of scenario | |||||
| Fictitious | 7 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 0 |
| Real life | 16 | 0 | 2 | 15 | 5 |
| Unclear | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| None | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Measure of test accuracy assessed | |||||
| Sensitivity | 22 | 2 | 6 | 20 | 4 |
| Specificity/FPR | 24 | 2 | 5 | 22 | 4 |
| LR+ | 5 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 0 |
| LR− | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| LR categories | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Graphical display | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| PPV | 21 | 1 | 3 | 19 | 3 |
| NPV | 6 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 1 |
| ROC | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FPR, false positive rate; LR−, negative likelihood ratio; LR+, positive likelihood ratio; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value; RCT, randomised controlled trial; ROC, receiver operating characteristic.