Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2011
Doctors and patients' susceptibility to framing bias: a randomized trial.
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.
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
46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Completeness of reporting and risks of overstating impact in cluster randomised trials: a systematic review.The Lancet. Global health · 2021Pooled it
- Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Pooled it
- Testing feedback message framing and comparators to address prescribing of high-risk medications in nursing homes: protocol for a pragmatic, factorial, cluster-randomized trial.Implementation science : IS · 2017Trial
- Article
- Judgments of predictability, preventability and causation of mental health homicides in England 2010 - 2023.Medicine, science, and the law · 2026Article
- How can non-inferiority studies with mortality end points be ethically justified?Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- Effects of likelihood framing on side effect expectations and nocebo side effects: Results from three experimental studies with a placebo analgesic cream.British journal of health psychology · 2026Article
- Article
- Cognitive Frame and Time Pressure as Moderators Of Clinical Reasoning: A Case Control Study.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Understanding Cancer Treatment Decision Making Among Cancer Survivors: Weighing Cancer Recurrence Versus Cardiotoxicity.Psycho-oncology · 2025Article
- Pitfalls of reasoning in hospital-based transfusion medicine.Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England) · 2024Review
- How to Administer the Performance Diagnostic Checklist-Human Services.Behavior analysis in practice · 2024Review
- Improving risk communication: a proof-of-concept randomised control trial assessing the impact of visual aids for neurosurgical consent.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Uterus Transplantation as a Surgical Innovation.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2023Article
- Digital encounter decision aids linked to clinical practice guidelines: results from user testing SHARE-IT decision aids in primary care.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews/meta-analyses: An appraisal of Arab Journal of Urology across 12 years: the PRISMA-Abstracts checklist.Arab journal of urology · 2023Article
- Cognitive biases and moral characteristics of healthcare workers and their treatment approach for persons with advanced dementia in acute care settings.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Cognitive and human factors in legal layperson decision making: Sources of bias in juror decision making.Medicine, science, and the law · 2022Review
- Evaluation of adverse drug reaction formatting in drug information mobile phone applications.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.