Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1994
Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 196 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive process model of clinical information interaction in primary care: results of a "best-fit" framework synthesis.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Pooled it
- Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update on the use of pharmacologic interventions including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibition for breast cancer risk reduction.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2009Guideline
- The effects of information framing on the practices of physicians.Journal of general internal medicine · 1999Pooled it
- Impact of adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews on readers' interpretation: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical research methodology · 2014Trial
- Trial
- Doctors and patients' susceptibility to framing bias: a randomized trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2011Trial
- Nocturnal oxygen therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a survey of Canadian respirologists.Canadian respiratory journal · 2007Trial
- A randomized comparison of patients' understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats.Journal of general internal medicine · 2003Trial
- Effects of information framing on the intentions of family physicians to prescribe long-term hormone replacement therapy.Journal of general internal medicine · 1999Trial
- Same information, different decisions: the influence of evidence on the management of hypertension in the elderly.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1996Trial
- Healthcare providers' understanding of data displays of clinical trial information: a scoping review of the literature.Journal of communication in healthcare · 2023Article
- Review
- Problems with Using Polygenic Scores to Select Embryos.The New England journal of medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Consensus development for healthcare professionals.Internal and emergency medicine · 2015Article
- Screening and prevention in Swiss primary care: a systematic review.International journal of general medicine · 2011Article
- Cancer risk communication in mainstream and ethnic newspapers.Preventing chronic disease · 2009Article
- Accuracy of drug advertisements in medical journals under new law regulating the marketing of pharmaceutical products in Switzerland.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2008Article
- Diabetes experts' reasoning about diabetes prevention studies: a questionnaire survey.BMC research notes · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether the reporting of study results by using reductions in relative or absolute risk and the number needed to treat affects the views of physicians about the effectiveness of drugs to lower lipid concentrations and decisions about treatment.
designRandom allocation of two questionnaires presenting the results of three end points of the Helsinki heart study as results from separate trials by using reduction in either relative or absolute risk. In both questionnaires one end point was also presented by showing person years of treatment needed to prevent one myocardial infarction. The effectiveness of lipid lowering drugs was assessed for all end points on an 11 point scale. For each study result the likelihood to treat hypercholesterolaemia of 7.5 mmol/l in a healthy man had to be indicated on a seven point scale. SUBJECTS: Random sample of 802 internists and general practitioners representative of providers of primary care in Switzerland.
resultsThe response rate was 69.6% (558). For the prevention of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction the mean ratings of effectiveness of lipid lowering drugs were 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.69) and 1.39 (1.09 to 1.68) scale points lower when the reduction of absolute risk or number needed to treat were reported instead of the relative risk reduction (both P < 0.001). Physicians receiving trial results for identical end points in form of absolute reduction of risk or number needed to treat were less inclined to treat hypercholesterolaemia (both P < 0.001).
conclusionsPhysicians' views of the effectiveness of lipid lowering drugs and the decision to prescribe such drugs is affected by the predominant use of reduction of relative risk in trial reports and advertisements.
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.