Trial reportArchives of internal medicine2011
Communicating uncertainties about prescription drugs to the public: a national randomized trial.
Trial report in Archives of internal medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Testing the Effect of a Warning About New Drugs
Testing the Effect of a Caution for Drugs Approved on Surrogate Outcomes Alone
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.
- Postapproval studies of drugs initially approved by the FDA on the basis of limited evidence: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2017Pooled 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
- Patient Understanding of Oncology Clinical Trial Endpoints in Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertising.The oncologist · 2023Trial
- Communicating Uncertainty in Written Consumer Health Information to the Public: Parallel-Group, Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Trial
- Alternative package leaflets improve people's understanding of drug side effects-A randomized controlled exploratory survey.PloS one · 2018Trial
- Trial
- FDA Accelerated Approval Disclosures on Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Websites: Testing Presence, Prominence, and Wording.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- Clinical Benefit and Global Regulation of Bispecific Antibody Drugs: A Cross-sectional Analysis.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2026Article
- Cancer Survivors' and Caregivers' Understanding of FDA Accelerated Approval Disclosures.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025Article
- Article
- Pre-approval and post-approval availability of evidence and clinical benefit of conditionally approved cancer drugs in Europe: A comparison with standard approved cancer drugs.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- Pharmaceutical Benefit-Risk Perception and Age Differences in the USA and Germany.Drug safety · 2020Article
- The IN-DEEP project "INtegrating and Deriving Evidence, Experiences, Preferences": a web information model on magnetic resonance imaging for people with multiple sclerosis.Journal of neurology · 2020Article
- Consumer understanding of the scope of FDA's prescription drug regulatory oversight: A nationally representative survey.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2020Article
- Cochrane Sustainable Healthcare: evidence for action on too much medicine.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Article
- Review
- Consumers' Understanding of FDA Approval Requirements and Composite Scores in Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Print Ads.Journal of health communication · 2016Article
- Pivotal clinical trials of novel ophthalmic drugs and medical devices: retrospective observational study, 2002-2012.BMJ open · 2015Observational
- Regulatory withdrawal of medicines marketed with uncertain benefits: the bevacizumab case study.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2015Article
- Assuring safety of inherently unsafe medications: the FDA risk evaluation and mitigation strategies.Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany new drugs are aggressively promoted. The public may not realize that even with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, important uncertainties about the benefits and harms of these drugs remain. We assessed the US public's understanding of the meaning of FDA drug approval and tested how brief explanations communicating drug uncertainties affect consumer choices.
methodsWe conducted an Internet-based randomized controlled trial using a national sample of US adults from a research panel of approximately 30,000 households. A total of 2944 participants were randomized to receive 1 of 3 explanations about a pair of cholesterol drugs (1 approved based only on a surrogate outcome [lower cholesterol] and 1 based on a patient outcome [reduced myocardial infarctions]). Participants were randomized a second time to receive 1 of 3 explanations about a pair of heartburn drugs (1 newly approved and 1 approved 8 years earlier). Controls received no explanation; the nondirective group received explanations (for the cholesterol drugs, surrogates do not always translate into patient outcomes; for the heartburn drugs, it takes time to establish the safety of new drugs); the directive group received explanations plus advice to "Ask for a drug shown to reduce heart attacks or ask for one with a longer track record." The primary outcomes were choice: the cholesterol drug reducing myocardial infarctions, and the older heartburn drug.
resultsThirty-nine percent mistakenly believed that the FDA approves only "extremely effective" drugs; 25% mistakenly believed that the FDA approves only drugs without serious side effects. Explanations affected choices: 71% of those in the directive group, 71% in the nondirective group, and 59% of controls chose the cholesterol drug that reduced myocardial infarctions (absolute difference, 12% [95% confidence interval, 7%-18%] for each explanation vs control). For the heartburn drugs, 53% of the directive group, 53% of the nondirective group, and 34% of controls chose the older drug (absolute difference, 19% [95% confidence interval, 13%-24%] for each explanation vs control).
conclusionsA substantial proportion of the public mistakenly believes that the FDA approves only extremely effective drugs and drugs lacking serious side effects. Brief explanations highlighting uncertainties about the benefit of drugs approved based on surrogate outcomes and the safety of new prescription drugs improved choices. Nondirective explanations worked as well as directive ones.
trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00950157, NCT00950131.
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.