BackgroundThe concept of shared-decision-making is a well-established approach to increase the participation of patients in medical decisions. Using lifetime risk or time-to-event (TTE) formats has been increasingly suggested as they might have advantages, e.g. in younger patients, to better show consequences of unhealthy behaviour. In this study, the most-popular ten-year risk illustration in the decision-aid-software arribaTM (emoticons), is compared within a randomised trial to a new-developed TTE illustration, which is based on a Markov model.MethodsThirty-two General Practitioners (GPs) took part in the study. A total of 304 patients were recruited and counseled by their GPs with arribaTM, and randomized to either the emoticons or the TTE illustration, followed by a patient questionnaire to figure out the degree of shared-decision-making (PEF-FB9, German questionnaire to measure the participation in the shared decision-making process, primary outcome), as well as the decisional conflict, perceived risk, accessibility and the degree of information, which are all secondary outcomes.ResultsRegarding our primary outcome PEF-FB9 the new TTE illustration is not inferior compared to the well-established emoticons taking the whole study population into account. Furthermore, the non-inferiority of the innovative TTE could be confirmed for all secondary outcome variables. The explorative analysis indicates even advantages in younger patients (below 46 years of age).ConclusionThe TTE format seems to be as useful as the well-established emoticons. For certain patient populations, especially younger patients, the TTE may be even superior to demonstrate a cardiovascular risk at early stages. Our results suggest that time-to-event illustrations should be considered for current decision support tools covering cardiovascular prevention.Trial registrationThe study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register and at the WHO International Clinical Trials Register Platform (ICTRP, ID DRKS00004933); registered 2 February 2016 (retrospectively registered).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0393-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cross-model validation was crucial to identify and correct coding errors and to explain differences in model outcomes. In our comparison, small differences in either QALYs or costs led to changes in ICERs because of changes in the set of dominated and nondominated strategies.

MVC is cost-effective, especially among individuals with few remaining options for active antiretroviral therapy.