Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21792695›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2011

Doctors and patients' susceptibility to framing bias: a randomized trial.

Thomas V Perneger, Thomas Agoritsas

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Pitfalls of reasoning in hospital-based transfusion medicine.Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England) · 2024
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Uterus Transplantation as a Surgical Innovation.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2023
    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

2 authors.

Thomas V PernegerDivision of clinical epidemiology, University Hospitals of Geneva, 4 rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, CH-1211, Geneva, Switzerland. thomas.perneger@hcuge.ch
Thomas Agoritsas

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFraming of risk influences the perceptions of treatment benefit.

objectiveTo determine which risk framing format corresponds best to comprehensive multi-faceted information, and to compare framing bias in doctors and in patients.

designRandomized mail surveys.

participantsOne thousand four hundred and thirty-one doctors (56% response rate) and 1121 recently hospitalized patients (65% response rate).

interventionRespondents were asked to interpret the results of a hypothetical clinical trial comparing an old and a new drug. They were randomly assigned to the following framing formats: absolute survival (new drug: 96% versus old drug: 94%), absolute mortality (4% versus 6%), relative mortality reduction (reduction by a third) or all three (fully informed condition). The new drug was reported to cause more side-effects. MAIN MEASURE: Rating of the new drug as more effective than the old drug.

resultsThe proportions of doctors who rated the new drug as more effective varied by risk presentation format (abolute survival 51.8%, absolute mortality 68.3%, relative mortality reduction 93.8%, and fully informed condition 69.8%, p < 0.001). In patients these proportions were similar (abolute survival 51.7%, absolute mortality 66.8%, relative mortality reduction 89.3%, and fully informed condition 71.2%, p < 0.001). In both doctors (p = 0.72) and patients (p = 0.23) the fully informed condition was similar to the absolute risk format, but it differed significantly from the other conditions (all p < 0.01). None of the differences between doctors and patients were significant (all p > 0.1). In comparison to the fully informed condition, the odds ratio of greater perceived effectiveness was 0.45 for absolute survival (p < 0.001), 0.89 for absolute mortality (p = 0.29), and 4.40 for relative mortality reduction (p < 0.001).

conclusionsFraming bias affects doctors and patients similarly. Describing clinical trial results as absolute risks is the least biased format, for both doctors and patients. Presenting several risk formats (on both absolute and relative scales) should be encouraged.

Indexed as

BiasPerceptionAdultData CollectionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationPatient PreferencePhysician's RoleTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID21792695
PMCPMC3235613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.