Summary of findings 6. Providing information by video versus by standard means alone.
| Video information versus standard information alone | |||||
| Patient or population: individuals eligible for trial Settings: any Intervention: video information Comparison: standard information (mixed but not including video) | |||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | |
| Effect with standard information | Effect with video information | ||||
| Number recruited | As measureda | RR 1.08 (0.89 to 1.31) | 4695 (3 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowc, d, e | |
| 33 per 100 |
36 per 100 (29 to 43) |
||||
| Lowb | |||||
| 10 per 100 | 11 per 100 (9 to 13) | ||||
| Moderateb | |||||
| 30 per 100 | 32 per 100 (27 to 39) | ||||
| Highb | |||||
| 50 per 100 | 54 per 100 (45 to 66) | ||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The effect with the video information (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group (standard information) and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio. | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate. | |||||
aThis is the baseline recruitment measured in the studies presented in the 'Summary of findings' table. bWe selected the low, moderate and high illustrative recruitment levels of 10%, 30% and 50% based on our prior experience with trial recruitment. cWe downgraded by 1 level because of study limitations: both Du 2008 and Du 2009 were at unclear risk of bias. dWe downgraded 1 level because of inconsistency. All 3 studies suggest little or no difference in recruitment due to the intervention but the Hutchison 2007 point estimate was in favour of control, while that of Du 2008 and Du 2009 studies was in favour of the intervention. eWe downgraded 1 level because of imprecision and wide CIs.