A meta-analysis of the effects of presenting treatment benefits in different formats

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 27, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 638-654

  Covey, Judith ^a  

^a DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Framing effects; Informed choice; Meta analysis; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; NORMAL HUMAN; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PHYSICIAN; REFERENCE DATABASE; RISK REDUCTION;

COMMUNICATION; DECISION MAKING; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 35148872098     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07306783     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Naylor CD, Chen E., Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Intern Med. 1992 ; 117: 916 - 21.
2. Edwards A., Elwyn G., Covey J., Matthews E., Pill R. Presenting risk information: a review of the effects of ''framing'' and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun. 2001 ; 6: 61 - 82.
3. Moxey A., O'Connell D., McGettigan P., Henry D. Describing treatment effects to patients: how they are expressed makes a difference. J Gen Intern Med. 2003 ; 18: 948 - 59.
4. McGettigan P., Sly K., O'Connell D., Hill S., Henry D. The effects of information framing on the practices of physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 1999 ; 14: 633 - 42.
5. Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S., Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med. 1993 ; 8: 543 - 54.
6. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F. Methods for Meta-analysis in Medical Research. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons ; 2000.
7. Whitehead A., Bailey AJ, Elbourne D. Combing summaries of binary outcomes with those of continuous outcomes in a meta-analysis. J Biopharm Stat. 1999 ; 9 (1). 1 - 16.
8. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB Practical meta-analysis: applied social research methods series. Vol49. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage ; 2001.
9. Rosenthal R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull. 1979 ; 86: 638 - 41.
10. Bucher HC, Morabia A. Teaching physicians about different measures of risk reduction may alter their treatment preference. Soz Präventivmed. 1998 ; 43: 67 - 72.
11. Emmons KM, Won M., Puleo E., Weinstein N., Fletcher R., Colditz G. Tailored computer-based cancer risk communication: correcting colorectal cancer risk perception. J Health Commun. 2004 ; 9: 127 - 41.
12. Slovic P., Finucane M., Peters E., MacGregor DG The affect heuristic. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, eds. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press ; 2002.
13. Thomson R., Edwards A., Grey J. Risk communication in the clinical consultation. Clin Med. 2005 ; 5: 465 - 9.
14. Slayter EK, Ward JE How risks of breast cancer and benefits of screening are communicated to women: analysis of 58 pamphlets. Br Med J. 1998 ; 317: 263 - 4.
15. Lexchin J. How patient outcomes are reported in drug advertisements: review of Canadian medical journals. Can Fam Physician. 1999 ; 45: 1213 - 6.
16. Moynihan RL, Bero L., Ross-Degnan R., et al. Coverage of the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. N Engl J Med. 2000 ; 342: 1645 - 50.
17. Dryver E., Hux JE Reporting of numerical and statistical differences in abstracts: improving but not optimal. J Gen Intern Med. 2002 ; 17: 203 - 6.
18. Nuovo J., Melnikow J., Chang D. Reporting number needed to treat and absolute risk reduction in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2002 ; 287: 2813 - 4.
19. Woloshin S., Schwartz LM Press releases: translating research into news. JAMA. 2002 ; 287: 2856 - 8.