Do clinicians understand the size of treatment effects? A randomized survey across 8 countries

CMAJ

Volumn 188, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 25-32

  Johnston, Bradley C ^a,b,c   Alonso Coello, Pablo ^d   Friedrich, Jan O ^e,f   Mustafa, Reem A ^g,h   Tikkinen, Kari A O ^h,i   Neumann, Ignacio ^h,j   Vandvik, Per O ^k,l   Akl, Elie A ^h,m   Da Costa, Bruno R ⁿ   Adhikari, Neill K ^f,o   Dalmau, Gemma Mas ^d   Kosunen, Elise ^p   Mustonen, Jukka ^p   Crawford, Mark W ^a,c   Thabane, Lehana ^h,q   Guyatt, Gordon H ^h  

^a HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^d CIBER EPIDEMIOLOGÍA Y SALUD PÚBLICA CIBERESP   (Spain)

^e ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY   (United States)

^h MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

ⁱ HELSINKI UNIVERSITY CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^j PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

^k UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^l INNLANDET HOSPITAL TRUST   (Norway)

^m AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT   (Lebanon)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^o Canada   (Canada)

^p TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

^q CENTRE FOR EVALUATION OF MEDICINES   (Canada)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PLACEBO;

ARTICLE; CANADA; CHILE; CHRONIC PAIN; CONTROLLED STUDY; FAMILY MEDICINE; FEMALE; FINLAND; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; INTERNAL MEDICINE; LEBANON; MALE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL STAFF; MEDICAL STUDENT; NORWAY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZATION; RESIDENT; SPAIN; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SWITZERLAND; THERAPY EFFECT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; COMPREHENSION; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK; STATISTICS;

COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; MALE; RISK; STATISTICS AS TOPIC; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84953209580     PISSN: 08203946     EISSN: 14882329     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150430     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, et al. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002;77:371-83.
2. Fransen M, McConnell S. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;(4):CD004376.
3. Juhl C, Lund H, Roos EM, et al. A hierarchy of patient-reported outcomes for meta-Analysis of knee osteoarthritis trials: empirical evidence from a survey of high impact journals. Arthritis 2012;2012:136245.
4. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. London (UK): Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available: www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed 2015 May 29).
5. Van Den Noortgate W, Onghena P. Estimating the mean effect size in meta-Analysis: bias, precision, and mean squared error of different weighting methods. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 2003;35:504-11.
6. Friedrich JO, Adhikari NK, Beyene J. The ratio of means method as an alternative to mean differences for analyzing continuous outcome variables in meta-Analysis: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8:32.
7. da Costa BR, Rutjes AW, Johnston BC, et al. Methods to convert continuous outcomes into odds ratios of treatment response and numbers needed to treat: meta-Epidemiological study. Int J Epidemiol 2012;41:1445-59.
8. Johnston BC, Thorlund K, Schunemann HJ, et al. Improving the interpretation of quality of life evidence in meta-Analyses: the application of minimal important difference units. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010;8:116.
9. Guyatt GH, Thorlund K, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:173-83.
10. Johnston BC, Patrick DL, Thorlund K, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in meta-Analyses-part 2: methods for improving interpretability for decision-makers. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013;11:211.
11. Anzures-Cabrera J, Sarpatwari A, Higgins JP. Expressing findings from meta-Analyses of continuous outcomes in terms of risks. Stat Med 2011;30:2967-85.
12. Friedrich JO, Adhikari NK, Beyene J. Ratio of means for analyzing continuous outcomes in meta-Analysis performed as well as mean difference methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:556-64.
13. Furukawa TA. From effect size into number needed to treat. Lancet 1999;353:1680.
14. Hasselblad V, McCrory DC. Meta-Analytic tools for medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 1995;15:81-96.
15. Johnston BC, Thorlund K, da Costa BR, et al. New methods can extend the use of minimal important difference units in meta-Analyses of continuous outcome measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:817-26.
16. Thorlund K, Walter SD, Johnston BC, et al. Pooling health-related quality of life outcomes in meta-Analysis-A tutorial and review of methods for enhancing interpretability. Res Synth Methods 2011;2:188-203.
17. Upshur CC, Luckmann RS, Savageau JA. Primary care provider concerns about management of chronic pain in community clinic populations. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:652-5.
18. Kongsved SM, Basnov M, Holm-Christensen K, et al. Response rate and completeness of questionnaires: a randomized study of Internet versus paper-And-pencil versions. J Med Internet Res 2007;9:e25.
19. Yetter G, Capaccioli K. Differences in responses to Web and paper surveys among school professionals. Behav Res Methods 2010;42:266-72.
20. Martyn C. Risky business: doctors' understanding of statistics. BMJ 2014;349:g5619.
21. Akl EA, Oxman AD, Herrin J, et al. Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;16:CD006776.
22. Montori VM, Jaeschke R, Schünemann HJ, et al. Users' guide to detecting misleading claims in clinical research reports. BMJ 2004;329:1093-6.
23. Zipkin DA, Umscheid CA, Keating NL, et al. Evidence-based risk communication: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2014; 161:270-80.