Trial reportPLoS medicine2009
The effect of alternative summary statistics for communicating risk reduction on decisions about taking statins: a randomized trial.
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.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.
- Internet-based interventions for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 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
- Alternative Presentations of Overall and Statistical Uncertainty for Adults' Understanding of the Results of a Randomized Trial of a Public Health Intervention: Parallel Web-Based Randomized Trials.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025Trial
- 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
- Doctors and patients' susceptibility to framing bias: a randomized trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2011Trial
- 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 · 2011Trial
- The effect of how outcomes are framed on decisions about whether to take antihypertensive medication: a randomized trial.PloS one · 2010Trial
- The effect of alternative graphical displays used to present the benefits of antibiotics for sore throat on decisions about whether to seek treatment: a randomized trial.PLoS medicine · 2009Trial
- Medicines and society: systemic change needed to address overprescribing.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Managing Hypercholesterolemia in Adults Older Than 75 years Without a History of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: An Expert Clinical Consensus From the National Lipid Association and the American Geriatrics Society.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025Article
- Exploring the characteristics, methods and reporting of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of time-to-event outcomes: a meta-epidemiological study.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Understanding the Family Context: A Qualitative Descriptive Study of Parent and NICU Clinician Experiences and Perspectives.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Communicating Absolute Fracture Risk Reduction and the Acceptance of Treatment for Osteoporosis.Calcified tissue international · 2022Article
- Details of risk-benefit communication in informed consent documents for phase I/II trials.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Article
- Iranian general populations' and health care providers' preferences for benefits and harms of statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- The Norwegian public's ability to assess treatment claims: results of a cross-sectional study of critical health literacy.F1000Research · 2020Article
- Article
- Preventive Treatments for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Issues Regarding Patient Preferences.Current rheumatology reports · 2016Review
- Decisions on statin therapy by patients' opinions about survival gains: cross sectional survey of general practitioners.BMC family practice · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.