Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Physicians and knowledge translation of statistics: Mind the gap

Gillian Bartlett and Justin Gagnon
CMAJ January 05, 2016 188 (1) 11-12; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.151254
Gillian Bartlett
Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Que.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: gillian.bartlett@mcgill.ca
Justin Gagnon
Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Que.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

See also www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.150430

The evidence-based medicine movement, started more than two decades ago, focuses on diligently summarizing an almost overwhelming amount of health research to help clinicians make more informed decisions. Many years later, it has become apparent that evidence from meta-analyses is not well understood by, and is therefore less accessible to, clinicians. In a linked research article, Johnston and colleagues1 report on their evaluation of clinicians’ ability to understand different statistical formats used as summary estimates from meta-analyses, in a well-conducted randomized survey of clinicians across eight countries. They concluded that all of the six statistical formats presented were poorly understood by the clinicians or were perceived as having limited usefulness.

Before addressing the problem highlighted in the linked article (i.e., of clinicians not understanding statistics well enough to facilitate knowledge synthesis), it might be helpful to consider why knowledge translation of health research is important. Morris and colleagues2 examined time lags in the implementation of health research and found that studies consistently report an average of 17 years from publication of evidence to translation into clinical practice. In a widely cited study that surveyed randomly selected households in the United States, McGlynn and colleagues3 concluded that only half of Americans were receiving recommended care. As a key illustration of this translational gap, the Human Genome Project has been completed for more than 10 years and has made an important contribution to medical research, but it has had an impact on clinical care in only a few instances.4 These studies, along with a growing body of research on the gap between evidence and practice, have shifted a great deal of public and political attention toward health researchers and funding agencies to prioritize knowledge translation and translation science. We clearly need to address the typical time lag between knowledge production and knowledge use, but first we need to better recognize what creates this gap.

In their seminal paper on knowledge translation, Graham and colleagues5 described knowledge inquiry as first-generation knowledge that produces an unmanageable number of studies of variable quality and accessibility. Knowledge synthesis is seen as second-generation knowledge that addresses the inability of busy clinicians to synthesize all the evidence available on a particular disease or condition. With the wealth of research being disseminated and made accessible through electronic media, the implicit belief is that, optimally, clinical decisions should be based on well-documented and synthesized evidence. Leaving aside the many areas of health care in which there is currently insufficient evidence, there is still enough research to drive entire enterprises that provide synthesized research (e.g., the Cochrane Collaboration). The idea is that, with a correctly formatted query, evidence is more easily available to clinicians to guide their decision-making and improve health outcomes for patients. Unfortunately, national statistics show that use of synthesized evidence remains low, at a high cost to patients and the health care system.6

Our first reaction to such a dilemma is often to propose more education. If clinicians are not using the evidence, one assumes the problem lies with the clinicians; limited use of evidence cannot be the fault of the evidence — it must be the fault of the user. In the 25 years since the evidence-based medicine movement was established, medical programs have included training on critical appraisal and research methods, with little improvement in care.7 Windish and colleagues8 surveyed 11 residency programs and found that the average score for statistical knowledge was 41.4% among medical residents; this score increased to only 50.0% among residents with advanced degrees. The idea that more education for clinicians will solve the problem is further refuted by Johnston and colleagues.1 On surveying more than 500 family physicians and internal medicine specialists internationally, they found no significant association between graduate training in health research methodology and correct interpretation of the statistical formats used in knowledge synthesis. So, if training does not address the problem, perhaps we should take a closer look at how we present our evidence.

Johnston and colleagues1 conclude that we need to consider other ways to help clinicians understand the results of research, particularly the results of syntheses such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses. An increasing focus on patient-oriented research opens up interesting possibilities for making research findings more accessible to clinicians. The need to disseminate knowledge not only to clinicians but to patients and the public as well brings the barrier of technical language and jargon into focus. Statistics, probably more so than any other aspect of research, is full of concepts and technical terms that may be difficult to interpret, let alone communicate, and this presents an important barrier to knowledge use. The p value, for example, is one of the most basic tools used to define whether something is statistically significant, and yet it is probably one of the most misunderstood and misused concepts in medical research.9 If researchers misuse and misunderstand such basic statistical tools, how can we expect clinicians to comprehend or use the findings of meta-analyses?

We suggest two solutions. First, just as funding agencies often require that abstracts be written in plain language to be accessible to the public, perhaps something similar should be considered for communicating the results of statistical analyses in research papers. In other words, our message should be tailored to our target audience — a key factor for successful knowledge translation.7 Second, research with patients has shown that visual displays are far more comprehensible for complicated concepts. Visual presentation of statistical findings may be an excellent option to improve knowledge translation to clinicians.10 Johnston and colleagues1 found that the clinicians in their study understood magnitude of effect best when presented as a risk difference. Routinely presenting the risk difference with a plain-language interpretation and supplemented with a graph might increase the perceived usefulness of the findings from meta-analyses.

Until we address this communication barrier in evidence synthesis and further explore potential solutions, we will continue to see a gap in the knowledge translation of statistics.

Key points
  • Statistical interpretation is difficult for researchers as well as clinicians, and this is an important knowledge translation issue.

  • Education has not been effective in improving statistical knowledge and interpretation among clinicians.

  • More accessible language and visual displays may be needed to make statistical findings from meta-analyses more comprehensible to clinicians.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

  • This article was solicited and has not been peer reviewed.

  • Contributors: Both authors contributed substantially to the conception of the manuscript. Gillian Bartlett drafted the manuscript, and Justin Gagnon revised it critically for important intellectual content. Both authors gave final approval of the version to be published and agreed to act as guarantors of the work.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Johnston BC,
    2. Alonso-Coello P,
    3. Friedrich JO,
    4. et al
    . Do clinicians understand the size of treatment effects? A randomized survey across 8 countries. CMAJ 2015; Oct. 26 [Epub ahead of print].
  2. ↵
    1. Morris ZS,
    2. Wooding S,
    3. Grant J
    . The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med 2011;104:510–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. McGlynn EA,
    2. Asch SM,
    3. Adams J,
    4. et al
    . The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:2635–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Green ED,
    2. Guyer MS
    National Human Genome Research Institute. Charting a course for genomic medicine from base pairs to bedside. Nature 2012;470:204–13.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Graham ID,
    2. Logan J,
    3. Harrison MB,
    4. et al
    . Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006; 26: 13–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Pronovost PJ
    . Enhancing physicians’ use of clinical guidelines. JAMA 2013;310:2501–2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Grimshaw JM,
    2. Eccles MP,
    3. Lavis JN,
    4. et al
    . Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci 2012;7:1–17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Windish DM,
    2. Huot SJ,
    3. Green ML
    . Medicine residents’ understanding of the biostatistics and results in the medical literature. JAMA 2007;298:1010–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Altman DG
    . Statistics in medical journals: some recent trends. Stat Med 2000;19:3275–89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Trevena LJ,
    2. Zikmund-Fisher BJ,
    3. Edwards A,
    4. et al
    . Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013;13(Suppl 2):1–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 188 (1)
CMAJ
Vol. 188, Issue 1
5 Jan 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Physicians and knowledge translation of statistics: Mind the gap
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Physicians and knowledge translation of statistics: Mind the gap
Gillian Bartlett, Justin Gagnon
CMAJ Jan 2016, 188 (1) 11-12; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.151254

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Physicians and knowledge translation of statistics: Mind the gap
Gillian Bartlett, Justin Gagnon
CMAJ Jan 2016, 188 (1) 11-12; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.151254
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Do clinicians understand the size of treatment effects? A randomized survey across 8 countries
  • Highlights
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Understanding of research results, evidence summaries and their applicability--not critical appraisal--are core skills of medical curriculum
  • Comprendre et expliquer le risque: Mesurer les resultats et lampleur des bienfaits et des prejudices
  • Understanding and communicating risk: Measures of outcome and the magnitude of benefits and harms
  • Prendre de meilleures decisions en matiere de depistage preventif: Equilibrer bienfaits et prejudices
  • Better decision making in preventive health screening: Balancing benefits and harms
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Antiracism as a foundational competency: reimagining CanMEDS through an antiracist lens
  • Keeping the front door open: ensuring access to primary care for all in Canada
  • Improving post-tuberculosis care in Canada
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Research methods & statistics

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire