Trial reportJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2023
Restricted mean survival time versus conventional effect summary for treatment decision-making: A mixed-methods study.
Trial report in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTreatment effect is typically summarized in terms of relative risk reduction or number needed to treat ("conventional effect summary"). Restricted mean survival time (RMST) summarizes treatment effect in terms of a gain or loss in event-free days. Older adults' preference between the two effect summary measures has not been studied.
methodsWe conducted a mixed methods study using a quantitative survey and qualitative semi-structured interviews. For the survey, we enrolled 102 residents with hypertension at five senior housing facilities (mean age 81.3 years, 82 female, 95 white race). We randomly assigned respondents to either RMST-based (n = 49) or conventional decision aid (n = 53) about the benefits and harms of intensive versus standard blood pressure-lowering strategies and compared decision conflict scale (DCS) responses (range: 0 [no conflict] to 100 [maximum conflict]; <25 is associated with implementing decisions). We used a purposive sample of 23 survey respondents stratified by both their random assignment and DCS from the survey. Inductive qualitative thematic analysis explored complementary perspectives on preferred ways of summarizing treatment effects.
resultsThe mean (standard deviation) total DCS was 22.0 (14.3) for the conventional decision aid group and 16.7 (14.1) for the RMST-based decision aid group (p = 0.06), but the proportion of participants with a DCS <25 was higher in the RMST-based group (26 [49.1%] vs 34 [69.4%]; p = 0.04). Qualitative interviews suggested that, regardless of effect summary measure, older individuals' preference depended on their ability to clearly comprehend quantitative information, clarity of presentation in the visual aid, and inclusion of desired information.
conclusionsWhen choosing a blood pressure-lowering strategy, older adults' perceived uncertainty may be reduced with a time-based effect summary, although our study was underpowered to detect a statistically significant difference. Given highly variable individual preferences, it may be useful to present both conventional and RMST-based information in decision aids.
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.