ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2026
Communicating Time-to-Event Treatment Effects in Randomized Trials: A Randomized Experiment among General Practitioners.
Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2026. 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
BackgroundTime-to-event outcomes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often communicated without clearly conveying how treatment effects evolve over time. This can limit clinicians' ability to interpret results and support patient decision making.MethodsWe conducted an online experiment with 250 German general practitioners in April 2024. Participants evaluated treatment effects presented in 4 common formats: hazard ratios, prolongation of life, restricted mean survival time (RMST), and absolute risk reduction. We assessed 1) understanding, defined as the ability to correctly compare effect sizes (small, medium, large), and 2) acceptability of each format. We also tested whether providing baseline risk information (control group outcomes) improved performance.ResultsParticipants' effectiveness ratings did not differ between small, medium, and large treatment effects in any format. RMST presentations were judged less effective but more acceptable than the other formats. Providing baseline risk information did not influence effectiveness ratings or acceptance.LimitationsThe use of a convenience sample may limit generalizability.ConclusionsGeneral practitioners struggled to interpret time-to-event treatment effects across all formats. Although RMST was preferred, no format supported accurate understanding of effect size.ImplicationsCurrent approaches may not adequately support communication of time-to-event outcomes in clinical practice. More effective strategies are needed, likely combining absolute time-based measures with clear contextual information such as baseline risk.Registration:
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.