Trial reportBrazilian oral research2024
Randomized trial of dentists' understanding: treatment benefit in absolute numbers vs relative risk reduction.
Trial report in Brazilian oral research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess whether dentists correctly understand the benefit of a dental treatment when it is presented using absolute numbers or relative risk reduction (RRR). This parallel-group randomized controlled trial recruited dentists from 3 postgraduate courses in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Participants received, in sequentially numbered sealed opaque envelopes, the description of a hypothetical scenario of the benefit (avoidance of multiple tooth loss) of nonsurgical periodontal treatment without or with antibiotics. Treatment benefit was presented in 2 different formats: absolute numbers or RRR. Dentists were given 10 minutes to read the treatment scenario and answer 5 questions. The final sample for analysis included 101 dentists. When asked to estimate the number of patients out of 100 who would avoid multiple tooth loss without antibiotics, 17 dentists (33%) in the absolute numbers group and 12 (25%) in the RRR group provided the correct response (p = 0.39). Regarding treatment with antibiotics, 26 dentists (50%) in the absolute numbers group and 14 (29%) in the RRR group provided the correct response (p = 0.04). Only 16 dentists (31%) in the absolute numbers group and 12 (25%) in the RRR group gave correct answers for both questions (p = 0.51). Most dentists did not correctly understand the benefit of the treatment, irrespective of the format it was presented. Slightly more dentists correctly understood the benefit of the treatment when it was presented as absolute numbers than as RRR.
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.