Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9615945›Full record

ArticleSozial- und Praventivmedizin1998

Teaching physicians about different measures of risk reduction may alter their treatment preference.

H C Bucher, A Morabia

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Sozial- und Praventivmedizin, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

H C BucherMedizinische Universitäts-Poliklinik, Kantonsspital Basel.
A Morabia

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We explored during a postgraduate workshop whether basic teaching about absolute and relative effect measures changed physicians' perceptions of the benefit to be derived from modifying particular cardiovascular risk factors. Before and after instruction physicians were asked about the priority they would give to interventions to reduce four risk factors of coronary heart disease in two male patients, aged 35 and 65 years with multiple risk factors. They were given information about the relative risk (RR), absolute risk reduction (ARR) and the number of patients who need to be treated (NNT) to prevent one event associated with the modification of each risk factor. Ratings of 48 of the 67 participating physicians (71.6%) were evaluated. About half did not change their choices regarding the benefit from a particular intervention. Among those who changed, the new choice was in favor of the patient with the higher ARR for three risk factors (hypertension, p = 0.01; smoking, p = 0.002; non-insulin-dependent diabetes, p = 0.05) but not the fourth (left ventricular hypertrophy, p = 0.82). Teaching basic principles of clinical epidemiology to physicians can have an impact on their perception of treatment effects. However, this will not suffice in itself to guarantee that this new knowledge will become part of their clinical practice.

Indexed as

EducationEducation, Medical, ContinuingAdultAgedCardiovascular DiseasesCurriculumHumansInternal MedicineMaleRisk FactorsSwitzerland

Identifiers

PMID9615945

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.