Misleading communication of risk

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 341, Issue 7777, 2010, Pages 791-792

  Gigerenzer, Gerd ^a   Wegwarth, Odette ^a   Feufel, Markus ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE AGENT;

BREAST CANCER; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; EDITORIAL; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; THROMBOSIS; UNITED KINGDOM;

COMMUNICATION; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 77958131956     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c4830     Document Type: Editorial

References (12)

1. Larsson LG, Nyström L, Wall S, Rutqvist L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, et al. The Swedish randomised mammography screening trials: analysis of their effect on the breast cancer related excess mortality. J Med Screen 1996;3:129-32. [Medline]
2. Nyström L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjöld B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: Updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 2002;359:909-19. [CrossRef] [Medline] [Web of Science] (Pubitemid 34246378)
3. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Helping doctors and patients to make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest 2007;8:53-96. [CrossRef]
4. Gigerenzer G, Mata J, Frank R. Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1216-20. [Abstract/FREE Full text]
5. Furedi A. The public health implications of the 1995 "pill scare." Hum Reprod Update 1999;5:621-6. [Abstract/FREE Full text]
6. Lidegaard Ø, Løkkegaard E, Svendsen AL, Agger C. Hormonal contraception and risk of venous thromboembolism: national follow-up study. BMJ 2009;339:b2890. [Abstract/FREE Full text]
7. Van Hylckama Vlieg A, Helmerhorst FM, Vandenbroucke JP, Doggen CJM, Rosendaal FR. The venous thrombotic risk of oral contraceptives, effects of oestrogen dose and progestogen type: results of the MEGA case-control study. BMJ 2009;339:b2921. [Abstract/FREE Full text]
8. Gigerenzer G, Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ 2003;327:741-4. [FREE Full text] (Pubitemid 37176763)
9. Covey J. A meta-analysis of the effects of presenting treatment benefits in different formats. Med Decis Making 2007;27:638-54. [Abstract/FREE Full text] (Pubitemid 47547599)
10. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Dvorin EL, Welch HG. Ratio measures in leading medical journals: structured review of accessibility of underlying absolute risks. BMJ 2006;333:1248-52. [Abstract/FREE Full text]
11. Sedrakyan A, Shih C. Improving depiction of benefits and harms: analyses of studies of well-known therapeutics and review of high-impact medical journals. Med Care 2007;45:523-8.
12. Gigerenzer G, Gray JAM. Launching the century of the patient. In: Gigerenzer G, Gray JAM, eds. Better doctors, better patients, better decisions: envisioning healthcare 2020. MIT Press [forthcoming].