ArticleSozial- und Praventivmedizin1998
Teaching physicians about different measures of risk reduction may alter their treatment preference.
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
9615945What 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.