Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20209127›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2010

The effect of how outcomes are framed on decisions about whether to take antihypertensive medication: a randomized trial.

Cheryl L L Carling, Doris Tove Kristoffersen, Andrew D Oxman, Signe Flottorp, Atle Fretheim, Holger J Schünemann, Elie A Akl, Jeph Herrin, Thomas D MacKenzie, Victor M Montori

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Framing of health information messages.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Pharmacotherapy decisions among postmenopausal women attending a group medical consultation or a one-on-one specialist consultation at an osteoporosis center: an observational cohort study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2021
    Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Cheryl L L CarlingNorwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway. cheryl.carling@kunnskapssenteret.no
Doris Tove Kristoffersen
Andrew D Oxman
Signe Flottorp
Atle Fretheim
Holger J Schünemann
Elie A Akl
Jeph Herrin
Thomas D MacKenzie
Victor M Montori
Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten · NODenver Health Medical Center · USMayo Clinic · USUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New York · USYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe conducted an Internet-based randomized trial comparing three valence framing presentations of the benefits of antihypertensive medication in preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD) for people with newly diagnosed hypertension to determine which framing presentation resulted in choices most consistent with participants' values. METHODS AND

findingsIn this second in a series of televised trials in cooperation with the Norwegian Broadcasting Company, adult volunteers rated the relative importance of the consequences of taking antihypertensive medication using visual analogue scales (VAS). Participants viewed information (or no information) to which they were randomized and decided whether or not to take medication. We compared positive framing over 10 years (the number escaping CVD per 1000); negative framing over 10 years (the number that will have CVD) and negative framing per year over 10 years of the effects of antihypertensive medication on the 10-year risk for CVD for a 40 year-old man with newly diagnosed hypertension without other risk factors. Finally, all participants were shown all presentations and detailed patient information about hypertension and were asked to decide again. We calculated a relative importance score (RIS) by subtracting the VAS-scores for the undesirable consequences of antihypertensive medication from the VAS-score for the benefit of CVD risk reduction. We used logistic regression to determine the association between participants' RIS and their choice. 1,528 participants completed the study. The statistically significant differences between the groups in the likelihood of choosing to take antihypertensive medication in relation to different values (RIS) increased as the RIS increased. Positively framed information lead to decisions most consistent with those made by everyone for the second, more fully informed decision. There was a statistically significant decrease in deciding to take antihypertensives on the second decision, both within groups and overall.

conclusionsFor decisions about taking antihypertensive medication for people with a relatively low baseline risk of CVD (70 per 1000 over 10 years), both positive and negative framing resulted in significantly more people deciding to take medication compared to what participants decided after being shown all three of the presentations.

trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTN 33771631.

Indexed as

Treatment OutcomeAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntihypertensive AgentsAttitude to HealthCardiovascular DiseasesDecision MakingFemaleHumansHypertensionInternetMaleMiddle AgedNorwayAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID20209127
PMCPMC2830888
OpenAlexW2033777994

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.