Evidence-based risk communication: A systematic review

Annals of Internal Medicine

Volumn 161, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 270-280

  Zipkin, Daniella A ^a   Umscheid, Craig A ^b   Keating, Nancy L ^c   Allen, Elizabeth ^d   Aung, Koko ^e   Beyth, Rebecca ^f   Kaatz, Scott ^g   Mann, Devin M ^h   Sussman, Jeremy B ⁱ   Korenstein, Deborah ^j   Schardt, Connie ^k   Nagi, Avishek ^l   Sloane, Richard ^a   Feldstein, David A ^m  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^d PORTLAND VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

^f N Florida/S Georgia Veterans Health System   (United States)

^g HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^h BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

ⁱ Center for Clinical Management Research   (United States)

^j AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^l DURHAM VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^m UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; NUMBERS NEEDED TO TREAT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; RISK REDUCTION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VISUAL AID; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PROBABILITY; PROCEDURES;

COMMUNICATION; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84907356764     PISSN: 00034819     EISSN: 15393704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7326/M14-0295     Document Type: Review

References (103)

1. What is Shared Decision Making? Informed Medical Decisions Foundation. Accessed at http://informedmedicaldecisions.org/what-is-shared-decision-making on 26 June 2013.
2. Alston C, Paget L, Halvorson G, Novelli B, Guest J, McCabe P, et al. Communicating with Patients on Health Care Evidence. Discussion Paper. Washington, DC: National Academies Pr; 2012.
3. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2007;8:53-96.
4. Wegwarth O, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Gaissmaier W, Gigerenzer G. Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:340-9. [PMID: 22393129]
5. Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren JB. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:608-18. [PMID: 16929039]
6. Trevena LJ, Davey HM, Barratt A, Butow P, Caldwell P. A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12:13-23. [PMID: 16422776]
7. Visschers VH, Meertens RM, Passchier WW, de Vries NN. Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature. Risk Anal. 2009;29:267-87. [PMID: 19000070]
8. Edwards AG, Evans R, Dundon J, Haigh S, Hood K, Elwyn GJ. Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006:CD001865. [PMID: 17054144]
9. Ahmed H, Naik G, Willoughby H, Edwards AG. Communicating risk. BMJ. 2012;344:e3996. [PMID: 22709962]
10. Akl EA, Oxman AD, Herrin J, Vist GE, Terrenato I, Sperati F, et al. Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011:CD006776. [PMID: 21412897]
11. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011:CD001431. [PMID: 21975733]
12. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1436-43. [PMID: 21931068]
13. Trevena LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Edwards A, Gaissmaier W, Galesic M, Han PK, 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:S7. [PMID: 24625237]
14. Guyatt G, Straus S, Meade MO, Kunz R, Cook DJ, Devereaux PJ, et al. Therapy (randomized trials). In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ, eds. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2008:67-86.
15. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Accessed at www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical-epidemiology/oxford.asp on 10 May 2013.
16. Almashat S, Ayotte B, Edelstein B, Margrett J. Framing effect debiasing in medical decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;71:102-7. [PMID: 18164168]
17. Ancker JS, Weber EU, Kukafka R. Effects of game-like interactive graphics on risk perceptions and decisions. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:130-42. [PMID: 20393103]
18. Armstrong K, Schwartz JS, Fitzgerald G, Putt M, Ubel PA. Effect of framing as gain versus loss on understanding and hypothetical treatment choices: survival and mortality curves. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:76-83. [PMID: 11833668]
19. Astley CM, Chew DP, Aylward PE, Molloy DA, De Pasquale CG. A randomised study of three different informational AIDS prior to coronary angiography, measuring patient recall, satisfaction and anxiety. Heart Lung Circ. 2008;17:25-32. [PMID: 17553747]
20. Barilli E, Savadori L, Pighin S, Bonalumi S, Ferrari A, Ferrari M, et al. From chance to choice: the use of a verbal analogy in the communication of risk. Health Risk Soc. 2010;12:546-59.
21. Bergus GR, Levin IP, Elstein AS. Presenting risks and benefits to patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:612-7. [PMID: 12213142]
22. Berry DC, Raynor DK, Knapp P. Communicating risk of medication side effects: an empirical evaluation of EU recommended terminology. Psychol Health Med. 2003;8:251-63.
23. Berry D, Raynor T, Knapp P, Bersellini E. Over the counter medicines and the need for immediate action: a further evaluation of European Commission recommended wordings for communicating risk. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;53: 129-34. [PMID: 15140451]
24. Berry DC, Knapp P, Raynor T. Expressing medicine side effects: assessing the effectiveness of absolute risk, relative risk, and number needed to harm, and the provision of baseline risk information. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63:89-96. [PMID: 16242904]
25. Carling C, Kristoffersen DT, Herrin J, Treweek S, Oxman AD, Schünemann H, et al. How should the impact of different presentations of treatment effects on patient choice be evaluated? A pilot randomized trial. PLoS One. 2008;3:e3693. [PMID: 19030110]
26. Carling CL, Kristoffersen DT, Flottorp S, Fretheim A, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, et al. The effect of alternative graphical displays used to present the benefits of antibiotics for sore throat on decisions about whether to seek treatment: a randomized trial. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000140. [PMID: 19707579]
27. Carling CL, Kristoffersen DT, Montori VM, Herrin J, Schünemann HJ, Treweek S, et al. The effect of alternative summary statistics for communicating risk reduction on decisions about taking statins: a randomized trial. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000134. [PMID: 19707575]
28. Cheung YB, Wee HL, Thumboo J, Goh C, Pietrobon R, Toh HC, et al. Risk communication in clinical trials: a cognitive experiment and a survey. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010;10:55. [PMID: 20868525]
29. Cox DS, Cox AD, Sturm L, Zimet G. Behavioral interventions to increase HPV vaccination acceptability among mothers of young girls. Health Psychol. 2010;29:29-39. [PMID: 20063933]
30. Cuite CL, Weinstein ND, Emmons K, Colditz G. A test of numeric formats for communicating risk probabilities. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:377-84. [PMID: 18480036]
31. Dolan JG, Iadarola S. Risk communication formats for low probability events: an exploratory study of patient preferences. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:14. [PMID: 18402680]
32. Edwards A, Thomas R, Williams R, Ellner AL, Brown P, Elwyn G. Presenting risk information to people with diabetes: evaluating effects and preferences for different formats by a web-based randomised controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63:336-49. [PMID: 16860964]
33. Fortin JM, Hirota LK, Bond BE, O'Connor AM, Col NF. Identifying patient preferences for communicating risk estimates: a descriptive pilot study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2001;1:2. [PMID: 11545684]
34. Gaissmaier W, Wegwarth O, Skopec D, Müller AS, Broschinski S, Politi MC. Numbers can be worth a thousand pictures: individual differences in understanding graphical and numerical representations of health-related information. Health Psychol. 2012;31:286-96. [PMID: 21842998]
35. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R. Communicating consequences of risky behaviors: Life expectancy versus risk of disease. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82:30-5. [PMID: 20219316]
36. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. Communicating treatment risk reduction to people with low numeracy skills: a cross-cultural comparison. Am J Public Health. 2009;99:2196-202. [PMID: 19833983]
37. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. Who profits from visual aids: overcoming challenges in people's understanding of risks [corrected]. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70: 1019-25. [PMID: 20116159]
38. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. How to reduce the effect of framing on messages about health. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25:1323-9. [PMID: 20737295]
39. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. Using plausible group sizes to communicate information about medical risks. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84:245-50. [PMID: 20728298]
40. Garcia-Retamero R, Hoffrage U. Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients. Soc Sci Med. 2013;83:27-33. [PMID: 23465201]
41. Ghosh K, Crawford BJ, Pruthi S, Williams CI, Neal L, Sandhu NP, et al. Frequency format diagram and probability chart for breast cancer risk communication: a prospective, randomized trial. BMC Womens Health. 2008;8:18. [PMID: 18937844]
42. Goodyear-Smith F, Arroll B, Chan L, Jackson R, Wells S, Kenealy T. Patients prefer pictures to numbers to express cardiovascular benefit from treatment. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6:213-7. [PMID: 18474883]
43. Green MJ, Biesecker BB, McInerney AM, Mauger D, Fost N. An interactive computer program can effectively educate patients about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. Am J Med Genet. 2001;103:16-23. [PMID: 11562929]
44. Griffith JM, Lewis CL, Hawley S, Sheridan SL, Pignone MP. Randomized trial of presenting absolute v. relative risk reduction in the elicitation of patient values for heart disease prevention with conjoint analysis. Med Decis Making. 2009;29:167-74. [PMID: 19279298]
45. Grimes DA, Snively GR. Patients' understanding of medical risks: implications for genetic counseling. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93:910-4. [PMID: 10362153]
46. Halvorsen PA, Selmer R, Kristiansen IS. Different ways to describe the benefits of risk-reducing treatments: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 146:848-56. [PMID: 17577004]
47. Han PK, Klein WM, Lehman T, Killam B, Massett H, Freedman AN. Communication of uncertainty regarding individualized cancer risk estimates: effects and influential factors. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:354-66. [PMID: 20671211]
48. Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jancovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:448-55. [PMID: 18755566]
49. Hinshaw K, El-Bishry G, Davison S, Hildreth AJ, Cooper A. Randomised controlled trial comparing three methods of presenting risk of Down's syndrome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;133:40-6. [PMID: 16949722]
50. Hopper KD, Zajdel M, Hulse SF, Yoanidis NR, TenHave TR, Labuski MR, et al. Interactive method of informing patients of the risks of intravenous contrast media. Radiology. 1994;192:67-71. [PMID: 8208968]
51. Hudson B, Toop L, Mangin D, Pearson J. Risk communication methods in hip fracture prevention: a randomised trial in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2011;61:e469-76. [PMID: 21801539]
52. Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Hauber B, Kauf TL. Women's willingness to accept perceived risks for vasomotor symptom relief. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007;16:1028-40. [PMID: 17903080]
53. Keller C, Siegrist M. Effect of risk communication formats on risk perception depending on numeracy. Med Decis Making. 2009;29:483-90. [PMID: 19525484]
54. Keller C, Siegrist M, Visschers V. Effect of risk ladder format on risk perception in high- and low-numerate individuals. Risk Anal. 2009;29:1255-64. [PMID: 19572963]
55. Knapp P, Raynor DK, Berry DC. Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13:176-80. [PMID: 15175486]
56. Knapp P, Raynor DK, Woolf E, Gardner PH, Carrigan N, McMillan B. Communicating the risk of side effects to patients: an evaluation of UK regulatory recommendations. Drug Saf. 2009;32:837-49. [PMID: 19722727]
57. Lin PJ, Concannon TW, Greenberg D, Cohen JT, Rossi G, Hille J, et al. Does framing of cancer survival affect perceived value of care? A willingness-topay survey of US residents. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;13: 513-22. [PMID: 23977977]
58. Lipkus IM, Biradavolu M, Fenn K, Keller P, Rimer BK. Informing women about their breast cancer risks: truth and consequences. Health Commun. 2001; 13:205-26. [PMID: 11451105]
59. Lipkus IM, Klein WM, Rimer BK. Communicating breast cancer risks to women using different formats. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001;10: 895-8. [PMID: 11489757]
60. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, McGreal MJ, Thiel EC. Cancer patients' decision making and trial-entry preferences: the effects of "framing" information about short-term toxicity and long-term survival. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:4-12. [PMID: 7898297]
61. Man-Son-Hing M, O'Connor AM, Drake E, Biggs J, Hum V, Laupacis A. The effect of qualitative vs. quantitative presentation of probability estimates on patient decision-making: a randomized trial. Health Expect. 2002;5:246-55. [PMID: 12199663]
62. Marteau TM, Saidi G, Goodburn S, Lawton J, Michie S, Bobrow M. Numbers or words? A randomized controlled trial of presenting screen negative results to pregnant women. Prenat Diagn. 2000;20:714-8. [PMID: 11015699]
63. Marteau TM, Senior V, Sasieni P. Women's understanding of a "normal smear test result": experimental questionnaire based study. BMJ. 2001;322: 526-8. [PMID: 11230068]
64. Martin RW, Brower ME, Geralds A, Gallagher PJ, Tellinghuisen DJ. An experimental evaluation of patient decision aid design to communicate the effects of medications on the rate of progression of structural joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86:329-34. [PMID: 21752570]
65. Mazur DJ, Merz JF. How the manner of presentation of data influences older patients in determining their treatment preferences. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1993;41:223-8. [PMID: 8440842]
66. Mazur DJ, Hickam DH. Five-year survival curves: how much data are enough for patient-physician decision making in general surgery? Eur J Surg. 1996;162:101-4. [PMID: 8639721]
67. McCaffery KJ, Dixon A, Hayen A, Jansen J, Smith S, Simpson JM. The influence of graphic display format on the interpretations of quantitative risk information among adults with lower education and literacy: a randomized experimental study. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:532-44. [PMID: 22074912]
68. Miron-Shatz T, Hanoch Y, Graef D, Sagi M. Presentation format affects comprehension and risk assessment: the case of prenatal screening. J Health Commun. 2009;14:439-50. [PMID: 19657924]
69. Natter HM, Berry DC. Effects of presenting the baseline risk when communicating absolute and relative risk reductions. Psychol Health Med. 2005; 10:326-34.
70. O'Donoghue AC, Sullivan HW, Aikin KJ, Chowdhury D, Moultrie RR, Rupert DJ. Presenting efficacy information in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;95:271-80. [PMID: 24581929]
71. Peters E, Hart PS, Fraenkel L. Informing patients: the influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side effect information on risk perceptions. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:432-6. [PMID: 21191122]
72. Price M, Cameron R, Butow P. Communicating risk information: the influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception-Accuracy, comprehension and preferences. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;69:121-8. [PMID: 17905553]
73. Roshan F, Saeed M, Agewall S. Patients' self-estimated likelihood of taking a statin as prescribed after different types of prognostic information. Atherosclerosis. 2010;212:586-8. [PMID: 20708186]
74. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 127:966-72. [PMID: 9412301]
75. Severtson DJ, Henriques JB. The effect of graphics on environmental health risk beliefs, emotions, behavioral intentions, and recall. Risk Anal. 2009;29:1549-65. [PMID: 19886946]
76. Sheridan SL, Pignone MP, Lewis CL. A randomized comparison of patients' understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:884-92. [PMID: 14687273]
77. Siegrist M, Orlow P, Keller C. The effect of graphical and numerical presentation of hypothetical prenatal diagnosis results on risk perception. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:567-74. [PMID: 18566487]
78. Silver B, Zaman IF, Ashraf K, Majed Y, Norwood EM, Schuh LA, et al. A randomized trial of decision-making in asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Neurology. 2012;78:315-21. [PMID: 22218277]
79. Smith HK, Manjaly JG, Yousri T, Upadhyay N, Taylor H, Nicol SG, et al. Informed consent in trauma: does written information improve patient recall of risks? A prospective randomised study. Injury. 2012;43:1534-8. [PMID: 21782171]
80. Sorensen L, Gyrd-Hansen D, Kristiansen IS, Nexøe J, Nielsen JB. Laypersons' understanding of relative risk reductions: randomised cross-sectional study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:31. [PMID: 18631406]
81. Steiner MJ, Dalebout S, Condon S, Dominik R, Trussell J. Understanding risk: a randomized controlled trial of communicating contraceptive effectiveness. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:709-17. [PMID: 14551000]
82. Stovring H, Gyrd-Hansen D, Kristiansen IS, Nexoe J, Nielsen JB. Communicating effectiveness of intervention for chronic diseases: what single format can replace comprehensive information? BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8: 25. [PMID: 18565218]
83. Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A. Presenting research risks and benefits to parents: does format matter? Anesth Analg. 2010;111: 718-23. [PMID: 20686011]
84. Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A. The effect of format on parents' understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between text, tables, and graphics. J Health Commun. 2010;15: 487-501. [PMID: 20677054]
85. Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Brennan-Martinez C, McGonegal M, Levine R. Using animated computer-generated text and graphics to depict the risks and benefits of medical treatment. Am J Med. 2012;125:1103-10. [PMID: 22939094]
86. Timmermans D, Molewijk B, Stiggelbout A, Kievit J. Different formats for communicating surgical risks to patients and the effect on choice of treatment. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;54:255-63. [PMID: 15324976]
87. Ubel PA, Smith DM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Derry HA, McClure J, Stark A, et al. Testing whether decision aids introduce cognitive biases: results of a randomized trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80:158-63. [PMID: 20004545]
88. Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons K. Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions. J Health Commun. 2006; 11:167-82. [PMID: 16537286]
89. Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons KM. Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2007;13:11-21. [PMID: 17385998]
90. Whatley S, Mamdani M, Upshur RE. A randomised comparison of the effect of three patient information leaflet models on older patients' treatment intentions. Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52:483-4. [PMID: 12051214]
91. Wolf AM, Schorling JB. Does informed consent alter elderly patients' preferences for colorectal cancer screening? Results of a randomized trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:24-30. [PMID: 10632830]
92. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. Communicating data about the benefits and harms of treatment: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:87-96. [PMID: 21768582]
93. Wright P, Belt S, John C. Helping people assess the health risks from lifestyle choices: comparing a computer decision aid with customized printed alternative. Commun Med. 2004;1:183-92. [PMID: 16808700]
94. Wright AJ, Whitwell SC, Takeichi C, Hankins M, Marteau TM. The impact of numeracy on reactions to different graphic risk presentation formats: An experimental analogue study. Br J Health Psychol. 2009;14:107-25. [PMID: 18442447]
95. Young SD, Oppenheimer DM. Different methods of presenting risk information and their influence on medication compliance intentions: results of three studies. Clin Ther. 2006;28:129-39. [PMID: 16490587]
96. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Roberts TR, Derry HA, Ubel PA. Alternate methods of framing information about medication side effects: incremental risk versus total risk of occurrence. J Health Commun. 2008;13:107-24. [PMID: 18300064]
97. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics. Cancer. 2008;113:3382-90. [PMID: 19012353]
98. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Derry HA, McClure JB, Stark A, et al. Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:209-14. [PMID: 18602242]
99. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Witteman HO, Fuhrel-Forbis A, Exe NL, Kahn VC, Dickson M. Animated graphics for comparing two risks: a cautionary tale. JMed Internet Res. 2012;14:e106. [PMID: 22832208]
100. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane Bias Methods Group. Accessed at http://bmg.cochrane.org/assessing-risk-bias-included-studies on 12 August 2013.
101. Hutton JA. Number needed to treat: properties and problems. J R Stat Soc Ser A. 2000;163:403-19.
102. Morrison A, Polisena J, Husereau D, Moulton K, Clark M, Fiander M, et al. The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based metaanalyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:138-44. [PMID: 22559755]
103. Guise JM, Chang C, Viswanathan M, Glick S, Treadwell J, Umscheid CA, et al. Systematic Reviews of Complex Multicomponent Health Care Interventions. AHRQ Publication no. 14-EHC003-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014.