Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2003
A randomized comparison of patients' understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats.
Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
42 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 183 citations in OpenAlex.
- Different Measures, Different Outcomes? A Systematic Review of Performance-Based versus Self-Reported Measures of Health Literacy and Numeracy.Journal of general internal medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.The patient · 2014Pooled it
- Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- Communicating risk using absolute risk reduction or prolongation of life formats: cluster-randomised trial in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014Trial
- Impact of effectiveness information format on patient choice of therapy and satisfaction with decisions about chronic disease medication: the "Influence of intervention Methodologies on Patient Choice of Therapy (IMPACT)" cluster-randomised trial in general practice.BMC health services research · 2013Trial
- Therapeutic decisions by number needed to treat and survival gains: a cross-sectional survey of lipid-lowering drug recommendations.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011Trial
- Communicating effectiveness of intervention for chronic diseases: what single format can replace comprehensive information?BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2008Trial
- Can postponement of an adverse outcome be used to present risk reductions to a lay audience? A population survey.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2007Trial
- Laypersons' understanding of statistical concepts commonly used in prescription drug promotion: A review of the research literature.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP · 2024Article
- Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- The time-varying cardiovascular benefits of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: Evidence from large multinational trials.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2022Article
- Effective communication regarding risk of fracture for individuals at risk of fragility fracture: a scoping review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2022Article
- Clinician Conceptualization of the Benefits of Treatments for Individual Patients.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Translating Cancer Risk Prediction Models into Personalized Cancer Risk Assessment Tools: Stumbling Blocks and Strategies for Success.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020Article
- Number needed to treat: A primer for neurointerventionalists.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2019Article
- How to communicate evidence to patients.Drug and therapeutics bulletin · 2019Review
- Side Effect Perceptions and Their Impact on Treatment Decisions in Women.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2017Article
- Decisions on statin therapy by patients' opinions about survival gains: cross sectional survey of general practitioners.BMC family practice · 2015Article
- How much survival benefit is necessary for breast cancer patients to opt for adjuvant chemotherapy? Results from a Chilean survey.Ecancermedicalscience · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCommentators have suggested that patients may understand quantitative information about treatment benefits better when they are presented as numbers needed to treat (NNT) rather than as absolute or relative risk reductions.
objectiveTo determine whether NNT helps patients interpret treatment benefits better than absolute risk reduction (ARR), relative risk reduction (RRR), or a combination of all three of these risk reduction presentations (COMBO).
designRandomized cross-sectional survey.
settingUniversity internal medicine clinic. PATIENTS: Three hundred fifty-seven men and women, ages 50 to 80, who presented for health care.
interventionsSubjects were given written information about the baseline risk of a hypothetical "disease Y" and were asked (1) to compare the benefits of two drug treatments for disease Y, stating which provided more benefit; and (2) to calculate the effect of one of those drug treatments on a given baseline risk of disease. Risk information was presented to each subject in one of four randomly allocated risk formats: NNT, ARR, RRR, or COMBO. MAIN
resultsWhen asked to state which of two treatments provided more benefit, subjects who received the RRR format responded correctly most often (60% correct vs 43% for COMBO, 42% for ARR, and 30% for NNT, P =.001). Most subjects were unable to calculate the effect of drug treatment on the given baseline risk of disease, although subjects receiving the RRR and ARR formats responded correctly more often (21% and 17% compared to 7% for COMBO and 6% for NNT, P =.004).
conclusionPatients are best able to interpret the benefits of treatment when they are presented in an RRR format with a given baseline risk of disease. ARR also is easily interpreted. NNT is often misinterpreted by patients and should not be used alone to communicate risk to patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.