Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19707575›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2009

The effect of alternative summary statistics for communicating risk reduction on decisions about taking statins: a randomized trial.

Cheryl L L Carling, Doris Tove Kristoffersen, Victor M Montori, Jeph Herrin, Holger J Schünemann, Shaun Treweek, Elie A Akl, Andrew D Oxman

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
28.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. 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 · 2014
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Risk communication methods in hip fracture prevention: a randomised trial in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Medicines and society: systemic change needed to address overprescribing.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Cheryl L L CarlingNorwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway. cheryl.carling@kunnskapssenteret.no
Doris Tove Kristoffersen
Victor M Montori
Jeph Herrin
Holger J Schünemann
Shaun Treweek
Elie A Akl
Andrew D Oxman
Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten · NOMayo Clinic · USUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New York · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile different ways of presenting treatment effects can affect health care decisions, little is known about which presentations best help people make decisions consistent with their own values. We compared six summary statistics for communicating coronary heart disease (CHD) risk reduction with statins: relative risk reduction and five absolute summary measures-absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat, event rates, tablets needed to take, and natural frequencies. METHODS AND

findingsWe conducted a randomized trial to determine which presentation resulted in choices most consistent with participants' values. We recruited adult volunteers who participated through an interactive Web site. Participants rated the relative importance of outcomes using visual analogue scales (VAS). We then randomized participants to one of the six summary statistics and asked them to choose whether to take statins based on this information. We calculated a relative importance score (RIS) by subtracting the VAS scores for the downsides of taking statins from the VAS score for CHD. We used logistic regression to determine the association between participants' RIS and their choice. 2,978 participants completed the study. Relative risk reduction resulted in a 21% higher probability of choosing to take statins over all values of RIS compared to the absolute summary statistics. This corresponds to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 5; i.e., for every five participants shown the relative risk reduction one additional participant chose to take statins, compared to the other summary statistics. There were no significant differences among the absolute summary statistics in the association between RIS and participants' decisions whether to take statins. Natural frequencies were best understood (86% reported they understood them well or very well), and participants were most satisfied with this information.

conclusionsPresenting the benefits of taking statins as a relative risk reduction increases the likelihood of people accepting treatment compared to presenting absolute summary statistics, independent of the relative importance they attach to the consequences. Natural frequencies may be the most suitable summary statistic for presenting treatment effects, based on self-reported preference, understanding of and satisfaction with the information, and confidence in the decision. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ISRCTN85194921.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultCoronary DiseaseDecision MakingFemaleHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPatient ParticipationPatient SatisfactionYoung AdultHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID19707575
PMCPMC2724738
OpenAlexW2081697999

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.