Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21911629›Full record

Trial reportArchives of internal medicine2011

Communicating uncertainties about prescription drugs to the public: a national randomized trial.

Lisa M Schwartz, Steven Woloshin

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT00950131 nacompletednot on this map

Testing the Effect of a Warning About New Drugs

TypeinterventionalSponsorWhite River Junction Veterans Affairs Medical CenterRan2009 to 2009Enrolled2,944ConditionsRisk CommunicationArmsPresentation of information about drug approval and level of warning
NCT00950157 nacompletednot on this map

Testing the Effect of a Caution for Drugs Approved on Surrogate Outcomes Alone

TypeinterventionalSponsorWhite River Junction Veterans Affairs Medical CenterRan2009 to 2009Enrolled2,944ConditionsRisk CommunicationArmsPresentation of information on approval based on a surrogate outcome and levels of caution
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Clinical Benefit and Global Regulation of Bispecific Antibody Drugs: A Cross-sectional Analysis.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2026
    Article
  9. Cancer Survivors' and Caregivers' Understanding of FDA Accelerated Approval Disclosures.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cochrane Sustainable Healthcare: evidence for action on too much medicine.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. 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 · 2014
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lisa M SchwartzVA Outcomes Group, White River Junction VA Medical Center, Vermont, USA.
Steven Woloshin
White River Junction VA Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Consumer Product SafetyDrug ApprovalUncertaintyAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnticholesteremic AgentsCommunicationFemaleHeartburnHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionPrescription DrugsAnticholesteremic AgentsPrescription Drugs

Identifiers

PMID21911629
OpenAlexW1981566499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.