Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians' willingness to prescribe

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(94)92407-4

The Lancet

Volume 343, Issue 8907, 14 May 1994, Pages 1209-1211

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(94)92407-4 Get rights and content

Abstract

Clinical trials may lead to conflicting results. We studied how different ways of reporting results affected physicians' recommendations. A questionnaire distributed to 148 general practitioners presented results of a clinical trial where a reduction of cardiac events and an increase of mortality was reported. Results were shown in four different ways—relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, percentages of event-free patients, number needing to be treated to prevent an event—as if they derived from different trials. A fifth presentation was the reduced rate of cardiac events along with the increased rate of mortality. Physicians were asked to estimate how much they would be willing to prescribe each drug. The mean agreement of physicians' decisions was 77 (28)% for relative risk reduction, 24 (28)% for absolute risk reduction, 37 (37)% for different percentages event-free patients, 34 (34)% for number need to treat, and 23 (28)% for events reduction and mortality for increase (p<0·001 relative risk vs others). The method of reporting trial results and the completeness of information in the case of controversial results affects physicians willingness to prescribe.

References (31)

L. Forrow et al.
Absolutely relative: How research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions
Am J Med
(1992)
Ar Feinstein
Fraud, distortion, delusion, and consensus; the problems of human on natural deception in epidemiologic science
Am J Med
(1988)
Am Weissler et al.
The need for clarification of percent risk reduction data in clinical cardiovascular trial reports
J Am Coll Cardiol
(1989)
Ar Feinstein
Invidious comparisons and unmet clinical challenges
Am J Med
(1992)
M. Bobbio
It is still controversial which is the correct way to report and to interpret event rates of clinical trials (letter)
Int J Cardiol
(1992)
Ae Dorr et al.
Colestipol hydrochloride in hypercholesterolemic patients. Effect on serum cholesterol and mortality
J Chron Dis
(1978)
Pr Lichtlen et al.
Retardation of angiographic progression of coronary artery disease by nifedipine. Results of the International Nifedipine Trial on Atherosclerotic therapy (INTACT)
Lancet
(1990)
Sd Nightingale et al.
Risk preference and decision making in crtitical care situations
Chest
(1988)
Cd Naylor et al.
Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perception of therapeutic effectiveness?
Ann Intern Med
(1992)
Mh Frick et al.
Helsinki heart study: primary prevention trial with gemfibrozil in middle-aged men with dyslipidemia
N Engl J Med
(1987)

C. Vergani

Prevenzione della malattia coronarica: l'importanza della terapia continuativa normolipemizzante

JAMA (Italian Edition)

(1991)

A. Lupacis et al.

An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment

N Engl J Med

(1988)

Jh Comroe

The road from research to new diagnosis and therapy

Science

(1978)

Tg Pickering

Treatment of mild hypertension and the reduction of cardiovascular mortality: the 'of' or 'by' dilemma

JAMA

(1983)

As Brett

Treating hypercholesterolemia. How should practising physicians interpret the published data for patients?

N Engl J Med

(1989)

Cited by (180)

Rosacea: Relative risk versus absolute risk of malignant comorbidities
2019, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
Avoiding the hazards of misinterpreting treatment effects
2019, Annals of Oncology
Multiple overlapping systematic reviews facilitate the origin of disputes: the case of thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism
2018, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Citation Excerpt :
Because individuals place different values on the health states, reviewers and guideline panelists should be transparent about their interpretations of the benefits, risks, and outcomes reported in primary studies, including the uncertainty of estimates [59]. Since medical literature emphasizes relative reduction in the risk of dying associated with treatments, it is expected that researchers will have high consideration of reduction in all-cause mortality [60,61]. Future updates of the PRISMA reporting guidance should better target the a priori interpretations of outcome measures, including harms [14,62].
To explore disagreements in multiple systematic reviews (SRs) assessing the benefit-to-harm ratio of thrombolytic therapy in patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE).
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effectiveness were searched up to April 14, 2016. We included SRs and guidelines that evaluated thrombolytic therapy, compared with anticoagulation alone, in intermediate-risk PE. We calculated pooled risk ratio (RR) and absolute risk difference (RD), with interquartile range (IQR), for all-cause mortality, recurrent PE, and major bleeding.
We marked the Pulmonary Embolism Thrombolysis trial, the largest trial, as a research milestone. Since its release in 2014, 12 SRs (2–15 included trials) and two major guidelines were published. Studies were concordant in reporting that thrombolysis reduced all-cause mortality (median RD −1.55%, IQR −1.60% to −1.40%; median RR 0.55, IQR 0.48–0.61). Discordant results were found for major bleeding (median RD 4.70%, IQR 0.90%–5.70%), with SRs reporting results in opposite directions. Relevant magnitude of effects and precision for benefits and harms were never prespecified.
Fourteen evidence syntheses were published within 25 months. Conclusions suggested mortality reduction associated with thrombolytics. Therapy harm was more dispersed and alternatively considered. Interpretation of the benefit-to-harm ratio was elusive, and modest incremental advantages might or not be important, facilitating the origin of disputes.
Large Clinical Trials and Registries-Clinical Research Institutes
2018, Principles and Practice of Clinical Research
The growing need for high-quality scientific evidence to inform medical practice and decision-making is placing increasing pressure on the clinical research enterprise. Although new diagnostic and therapeutic technologies offer dramatic opportunities to improve health outcomes, they continue to drive up health-care costs while resources for evaluating such technologies are becoming increasingly constrained. In this environment, researchers and clinicians must have a thorough grasp of the strengths and limitations of various research methods and be able to critically evaluate and apply not only traditional approaches, but also novel techniques now emerging in the era of “big data.” In this chapter, we will explore the history, background, and general concepts of clinical research. We will also examine trial design; ethical, legal, and organizational aspects of clinical research; application of statistical methods; and the integration of these concepts into practice. Finally, we will visit current controversies in clinical research and explore future possibilities.
Choose Your Words Wisely: The Impact of Message Framing on Patients’ Responses to Treatment Advice
2018, International Review of Neurobiology
Citation Excerpt :
Clinicians are not immune to these “cognitive failures” either (Croskerry, 2013; Roman & Asch, 2014; Saposnik et al., 2016), and this includes being susceptible to framing. This susceptibility appears to be independent of independent of the physician's age, sex, speciality and experience (Bobbio et al., 1994). For example, a survey consisting of short vignettes covering four variations of framing effect was undertaken in a representative sample of US internists (Bui, Krieger, & Blumenthal-Barby, 2015).
Other people's words can have a powerful influence on how we interpret our environment, what we expect and experience, what we value, how we feel, what we choose, and how we behave. Placebo (and nocebo) effects are a dramatic example of this. The way in which healthcare professionals discuss, describe, and inform patients about the characteristic effects of a given disease and it prevention, diagnosis and treatment influence patients' feelings and expectations which in turn affects their psychobiological responses to, and subjective experiences and outcomes of the disease and its treatment effects.
The effect of clinicians' words on patients' responses to treatments and procedures, both active and inert or sham is nothing less than incredible. The way in which information about treatment effects is delivered to patients can even reverse the clinically proven effects of an active treatment, or increase the adverse effects of it.
In this chapter, we begin by presenting the data on the impact of message framing on affect and expectations of health care in experimental situations followed by the evidence that indicates how various patient, disease and clinician related factors modify framing effects in the clinic. Finally we discuss how framing effects affect clinical practice. They can be leveraged to enhance placebo effects and minimize nocebo effects. They can provide strategies to assist shared-decision making in the face of complex uncertainty.
Going forward, automation of health care and artificial intelligence may change the delivery of health care but patients will continue to be humans seeking health gains while avoiding health losses and how the information is presented will always be susceptible to framing effects.
Comorbidities in patients with psoriasis: The role of the dermatologist
2017, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Clinical practiceCompleteness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians' willingness to prescribe

Abstract

Am J Med

Am J Med

J Am Coll Cardiol

Am J Med

Int J Cardiol

J Chron Dis

Lancet

Chest

Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perception of therapeutic effectiveness?

Ann Intern Med

Helsinki heart study: primary prevention trial with gemfibrozil in middle-aged men with dyslipidemia

N Engl J Med

Prevenzione della malattia coronarica: l'importanza della terapia continuativa normolipemizzante

JAMA (Italian Edition)

An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment

N Engl J Med

The road from research to new diagnosis and therapy

Science

Treatment of mild hypertension and the reduction of cardiovascular mortality: the 'of' or 'by' dilemma

JAMA

Treating hypercholesterolemia. How should practising physicians interpret the published data for patients?

N Engl J Med

Clinical practice
Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians' willingness to prescribe