Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39230904›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Post Hoc Bias in Treatment Decisions.

Donald A Redelmeier, Eldar Shafir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Donald A RedelmeierDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Eldar ShafirDepartment of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: A goal of health care is to reduce symptoms and improve health status, whereas continuing dubious treatments can contribute to complacency, discourage the search for alternatives, and lead to shortfalls in care. Objective: To test a potential bias in intuitive reasoning following a marginal improvement in symptoms after a dubious treatment (post hoc bias). Design, Setting, and Participants: Surveys eliciting treatment recommendations for hypothetical patients were sent to community members throughout North America recruited via an online survey platform in the early winter months of 2023 and 2024 and presented to health care professionals (pharmacists who were approached in person using a secret shopper technique) in the summer months of 2023. Exposure: Respondents received randomized versions of surveys that differed according to whether vague symptoms improved or remained unchanged after a dubious treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a recommendation to continue treatment. Results: In total, 1497 community members (mean [SD] age, 38.1 [12.5] years; 663 female [55.3%]) and 100 health care professionals were contacted. The first scenario described a patient with a sore throat who took unprescribed antibiotics; respondents were more likely to continue antibiotics after initial treatment if there was a marginal improvement in symptoms vs when symptoms remained unchanged (67 of 150 respondents [45%] vs 25 of respondents [17%]; odds ratio [OR], 3.98 [95% CI, 2.33-6.78]; P < .001). Another scenario described a patient with wrist pain who wore a copper bracelet; respondents were more likely to continue wearing the copper bracelet after initial care was followed by a marginal improvement in symptoms vs when symptoms remained unchanged (78 of 100 respondents [78%] vs 25 of 99 respondents [25%]; OR, 16.19 [95% CI, 5.32-19.52]; P < .001). A third scenario described a patient with fatigue who took unprescribed vitamin B12; respondents were more likely to continue taking vitamin B12 when initial treatment was followed by a marginal improvement in symptoms vs when symptoms remained unchanged (80 of 100 respondents [80%] vs 33 of 100 respondents [33%]; OR, 7.91 [95% CI, 4.18-14.97]; P < .001). Four further scenarios involving dubious treatments found similar results, including when tested on health care professionals. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of clinical scenarios, a marginal improvement in symptoms led patients to continue a dubious and sometimes costly treatment, suggesting that clinicians should caution patients against post hoc bias.

Indexed as

BiasAdultDecision MakingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorth AmericaSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39230904
PMCPMC11375477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.