ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1995
Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- What is the point: will screening mammography save my life?BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2009Trial
- Effects of information framing on the intentions of family physicians to prescribe long-term hormone replacement therapy.Journal of general internal medicine · 1999Trial
- Ten Years of Medical Informatics and Standards Support for Clinical Research in an Infectious Diseases Network.Applied clinical informatics · 2023Article
- [Interpretation of systematic review articles and meta-analyses : Clinical trials in trauma surgery and orthopedics].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022Article
- [Evidence-based medicine in orthopedics and trauma surgery].Der Orthopade · 2021Article
- Problems with Using Polygenic Scores to Select Embryos.The New England journal of medicine · 2021Article
- Baseline risk of recurrence in stage I-II endometrial carcinoma.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2018Article
- Do evidence summaries increase health policy-makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2018Article
- A SOA-Based Platform to Support Clinical Data Sharing.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2017Article
- Comparing and Contrasting A Priori and A Posteriori Generalizability Assessment of Clinical Trials on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2017Article
- Integration of PKPD relationships into benefit-risk analysis.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015Review
- Consensus development for healthcare professionals.Internal and emergency medicine · 2015Article
- [Use and interpretation of the number needed to treat in urological practice].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2013Review
- A proposal for an additional clinical trial outcome measure assessing preventive effect as delay of events.European journal of epidemiology · 2012Article
- Cardiovascular risk.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2012Review
- Animated graphics for comparing two risks: a cautionary tale.Journal of medical Internet research · 2012Article
- Relationship of persistent manic symptoms to the diagnosis of pediatric bipolar spectrum disorders.The Journal of clinical psychiatry · 2011Article
- Promoting healthy skepticism in the news: helping journalists get it right.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2009Article
- Cancer risk communication in mainstream and ethnic newspapers.Preventing chronic disease · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess whether the way in which the results of a randomised controlled trial and a systematic review are presented influences health policy decisions.
designA postal questionnaire to all members of a health authority within one regional health authority.
settingAnglia and Oxford regional health authorities. SUBJECTS: 182 executive and non-executive members of 13 health authorities, family health services authorities, or health commissions.
main outcome measuresThe average score from all health authority members in terms of their willingness to fund a mammography programme or cardiac rehabilitation programme according to four different ways of presenting the same results of research evidence--namely, as a relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, proportion of event free patients, or as the number of patients needed to be treated to prevent an adverse event.
resultsThe willingness to fund either programme was significantly influenced by the way in which data were presented. Results of both programmes when expressed as relative risk reductions produced significantly higher scores when compared with other methods (P < 0.05). The difference was more extreme for mammography, for which the outcome condition is rarer.
conclusionsThe method of reporting trial results has a considerable influence on the health policy decisions made by health authority members.
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.