ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making
How well do commonly used data presentation formats support comparative effectiveness evaluations?
Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do visual aids influenced patients' risk perceptions for rare and very rare risks?Patient education and counseling · 2018Trial
- Article
- A process for creating data report-back tools to improve equity in environmental health.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2022Article
- Risk communication in tables versus text: a registered report randomized trial on 'fact boxes'.Royal Society open science · 2020Article
- Development of a Framework Based on Reflective MCDA to Support Patient-Clinician Shared Decision-Making: The Case of the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the United States.Advances in therapy · 2018Article
- Who should decide how much and what information is important in person-centred health care?Journal of health services research & policy · 2015Article
- Use of the analytic hierarchy process for medication decision-making in type 2 diabetes.PloS one · 2015Article
- Increasing User Involvement in Health Care and Health Research Simultaneously: A Proto-Protocol for "Person-as-Researcher" and Online Decision Support Tools.JMIR research protocols · 2014Article
- The value of personalised risk information: a qualitative study of the perceptions of patients with prostate cancer.BMJ open · 2013Article
- Systematic assessment of benefits and risks: study protocol for a multi-criteria decision analysis using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for comparative effectiveness research.F1000Research · 2013Article
- Article
- How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision MakingArticle
- How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 1: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
- Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
- How Difference Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGood decisions depend on an accurate understanding of the comparative effectiveness of decision alternatives. The best way to convey data needed to support these comparisons is unknown.
objectiveTo determine how well 5 commonly used data presentation formats convey comparative effectiveness information.
methodsThe study was an Internet survey using a factorial design. Participants consisted of 279 members of an online survey panel. Study participants compared outcomes associated with 3 hypothetical screening test options relative to 5 possible outcomes with probabilities ranging from 2 per 5000 (0.04%) to 500 per 1000 (50%). Data presentation formats included a table, a "magnified" bar chart, a risk scale, a frequency diagram, and an icon array. Outcomes included the number of correct ordinal judgments regarding the more likely of 2 outcomes, the ratio of perceived versus actual relative likelihoods of the paired outcomes, the intersubject consistency of responses, and perceived clarity.
resultsThe mean number of correct ordinal judgments was 12 of 15 (80%), with no differences among data formats. On average, there was a 3.3-fold difference between perceived and actual likelihood ratios (95% confidence interval = 3.0-3.6). Comparative judgments based on flowcharts, icon arrays, and tables were all significantly more accurate and consistent than those based on risk scales and bar charts (P < 0.001). The most clearly perceived formats were the table and the flowchart. Low subjective numeracy was associated with less accurate and more variable data interpretations and lower perceived clarity for icon displays, bar charts, and flow diagrams.
conclusionsNone of the data presentation formats studied can reliably provide patients, especially those with low subjective numeracy, with an accurate understanding of comparative effectiveness information.
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.