Absolutely relative: How research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions

Forrow, Lachlan; Taylor, William C.; Arnold, Robert M.

doi:10.1016/0002-9343(92)90100-p

Cited by 304 publications

(188 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

181

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of number needed to treat should be seriously questioned as a valid and usable sole measure of bene t that conveys all necessary information (20). The nding that more doctors would recommend the drug when information only on relative risk reduction was given is in accordance with other studies (2,4,21). In our study, the effect of presenting risk reduction in relative terms compared to absolute terms is similar to ndings in a Swiss study of physicians' decisions to prescribe drugs in order to lower serum cholesterol levels (22).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Perception of risk information. Similarities and differences between Danish and Polish general practitioners

Nexøe

Ołtarzewska

Sawicka-Powierza

et al. 2002

Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Perception of risk information. Similarities and differences between Danish and Polish general practitioners

Nexøe

Ołtarzewska

Sawicka-Powierza

et al. 2002

Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Based upon a vast literature on framing of data [3][4][5][6][7][8] and the results of the pilot study, the following assumptions were made. Effect sizes are rated highest when presented as relative risk reduction (RRR) with higher numerical RRRs being more important than lower values (item 1 vs item 3).…”

Section: Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This requires translation of study results into clear and understandable information [3]. Framing of data is a wellrecognised cause of misconceptions about the efficacy of health interventions by physicians [4][5][6], healthcare decision-makers [7], and patients [8]. This is particularly relevant for preventive medicine [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding of diabetes prevention studies: questionnaire survey of professionals in diabetes care

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims/hypothesis: Diabetes prevention studies have reported reductions of diabetes risk by up to 60%. Since the underlying metabolic changes are small, the clinical significance of this effect may be overestimated. The present survey explores the extent to which different formats of presenting study results may influence diabetes healthcare professionals' perceptions of the importance of intervention effects on diabetes risk. Subjects, materials and methods: Participants of three European diabetes conferences (160 nurse educators, 112 physicians, 27 other professionals) were presented with a questionnaire that included nine items, in which results from three diabetes prevention studies were presented in different ways. Results: Participation rate was 96%. Effects were interpreted as important or very important by 92% (255/276) when results were presented as proportions of subjects with diabetes (14% intervention group, 29% control group), by 87% (248/285) when results were communicated as a risk reduction of 57%, by 39% (110/284) when the corresponding fasting plasma glucose values were presented (mean difference 0.3 mmol/l), and by 18% (52/283) when glycosylated haemoglobin values were used (6.0 vs 6.1%). Corresponding results of the three diabetes prevention studies were rated as being of identical importance by only 23, 13 and 16% of participants, respectively. Conclusions and interpretation: Healthcare professionals rate the benefit of preventive interventions substantially higher when changes in diabetes risk are communicated rather than related glycaemic parameters. Transformation of continuous metabolic data into diagnostic categories may impair understanding of study effects.

show abstract

“…But the influence of reading journal articles on clinical decision making is not clear [5,6,7,8,9,10]. This could be due to the perception that clinical research is not appropriate enough [11], critical appraisal skills are not sufficient, or there could be other problems with interpreting medical articles [12,13,14,15,16]. Moreover, opinion leaders suspect that physicians obtain information about drug therapy mainly from the pharmaceutical industry and not from peer-reviewed jourJournals play a major part in continuing medical education (CME) of physicians [1,2,3].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Information management and reading habits of German diabetologists: a questionnaire survey

Trelle

2002

Diabetologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims/hypothesis. Journals play an important part in continuing medical education and in influencing the prescription of drugs. Because little is known about reading habits and information management of specialists a questionnaire survey among German diabetologists was conducted. Subjects and methods. A non-randomised sample of 461 German diabetologists was selected from a database of German diabetologists (n=1585). A questionnaire was developed (92 items) which consisted of eight sections: continuing education in general, decision making and problem solving, use of databases, reading habits, knowledge of technical terms and critical appraisal skills, personal data. Results. The adjusted response rate was 57% (crude 52%). Most influential factors for therapeutic decision making were due to own experience, continuing education events, published material, and colleagues. The influence of industry related factors was perceived low. A relatively high rate of respondents (39%) perceived the influence by patients as rather low. Overall 90% had convenient access to the internet, MedLine or EMBASE but only 45% searched databases regularly (three searches per month). Median time for reading journals was 3 h a week. Five journals were read regularly, 25% of which were diabetological journals and 47% of the respondents did not read English written journals regularly. The methods section of an article was seldom read whereas the abstract and the discussion were almost always read. Most respondents had some understanding of technical terms but reported practices of appraising articles were inadequate. Conclusion/interpretation. It could be shown that reading expenditures and critical appraisal skills of diabetologists are slightly higher compared with nonspecialists. But the concept of evidence-based medicine still does not seem to be incorporated in clinical practice. [Diabetologia (2002) 45:764-774]

show abstract

Absolutely relative: How research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions

Cited by 304 publications

References 17 publications

Perception of risk information. Similarities and differences between Danish and Polish general practitioners

Perception of risk information. Similarities and differences between Danish and Polish general practitioners

Understanding of diabetes prevention studies: questionnaire survey of professionals in diabetes care

Information management and reading habits of German diabetologists: a questionnaire survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About