Academia and Clinic
1 December 1992

Measured Enthusiasm: Does the Method of Reporting Trial Results Alter Perceptions of Therapeutic Effectiveness?

Publication: Annals of Internal Medicine
Volume 117, Number 11

Abstract

Objective: To compare clinicians' ratings of therapeutic effectiveness when different trial end points were presented as percent reductions in relative compared with absolute risk and as numbers of patients treated to avoid one adverse outcome.
Design: Survey, with random allocation of two questionnaires.
Setting: Toronto teaching hospitals.
Respondents: Convenience sample of 100 faculty and housestaff in internal medicine and family medicine.
Intervention: One questionnaire presented results for three end points of the Helsinki Heart Study as separate drug trials using only absolute differences in events; the other showed the same end points as relative differences. Both questionnaires included a fourth "trial," showing person-years of treatment needed to prevent one myocardial infarction.
Main Outcome Measure: The "trials" were each rated on an 11-point scale, from treatment "harmful" to "very effective."
Results: Respondents' ratings of effectiveness varied with the end point. Controlling for end point, ratings of effectiveness by the 50 participants receiving absolute event data were lower than those by 50 participants responding to relative risk reductions (P < 0.001); however, no end-point difference was more than 0.6 scale points. For a "trial" reporting that 77 persons were treated for 5 years to prevent one myocardial infarction, mean ratings were 2.3 or 1.8 scale points lower, respectively (both P < 0.001), than when the same data were shown as relative or absolute risk reductions.
Conclusions: Clinicians' views of drug therapies are affected by the common use of relative risk reductions in both trial reports and advertisements, by end-point emphasis, and, above all, by underuse of summary measures that relate treatment burden to therapeutic yields in a clinically relevant manner.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

References

1.
Tversky A and Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453-8.
2.
Kahneman D and Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychologist. 1984;39:341-50.
3.
Slovic PFischoff B, and Lichtenstein S. Facts versus fears: understanding perceived risk. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A; eds. Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1982:478-83.
4.
Forrow LTaylor W, and Arnold R. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992;92:121-4.
5.
Laupacis ASackett D, and Roberts R. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:1728-33.
6.
Laupacis ANaylor C, and Sackett D. How should the results of clinical trials be presented to clinicians? [Editorial]. ACP J Club. 1992 May-June:A12-A14
6.
(Ann Intern Med. vol 116, suppl 3).
7.
Frick MElo OHaapa KHeinonen OHeinsalmi P, and Helo P. Helsinki Heart Study: primary-prevention trial with gemfibrozil in middle-aged men with dyslipidemia. Safety of treatment, changes in risk factors, and incidence of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:1237-45.
8.
Manninen VElo MFrick MHaapta KHeinonen O, and Heinsalmi P. Lipid alterations and decline in the incidence of coronary heart disease in the Helsinki Heart Study. JAMA. 1988; 260:641-51.
9.
Moore N and Biour M. Gemfibrozil and coronary heart disease [Letter]. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:1275.
10.
McCormick J. Gemfibrozil and coronary heart disease [Letter]. N Engl J Med 1988;318:1274.
11.
Brett A. Treating hypercholesterolemia. How should practicing physicians interpret the published data for patients? N Engl J Med. 1989;321:676-80.
12.
Simon R. Confidence intervals for reporting results of clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 1986;105:429-35.
13.
Muldoon MManuck S, and Matthews K. Lowering cholesterol concentrations and mortality: a quantitative review of primary prevention trials. BMJ. 1990;301:309-14.
14.
Holme I. An analysis of randomized trials evaluating the effect of cholesterol reduction on total mortality and coronary heart disease incidence. Circulation. 1990;82:1916-24.
15.
Basinski ANaylor CFrank J, and Rachlis M. Randomized clinical trials in heart disease [Letter]. JAMA. 1989;261:2952-4.
16.
Yusuf SWittes JProbstfield J, and Tyroler H. Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 1991;266:93-8.
17.
Naylor C. Dyslipidaemias and the primary prevention of coronary heart disease: reflections on some unresolved policy issues. In Gold P, Grover S, Roncari DA; eds. Cholesterol and Coronary Heart Disease: The Great Debate. London: Parthenon; 1992:401-30.
18.
Naylor CBasinski AFrank J, and Rachlis M. Asymptomatic hypercholesterolemia: a clinical policy review. Toronto Working Group on Cholesterol Policy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:1028-121.
19.
The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial Results. I. Reduction in incidence of coronary heart disease. JAMA. 1984;251:351-64.
20.
Brett A. Ethical issues in risk factor intervention. Am J Med. 1984;76:557-61.
21.
Forrow LWartman S, and Brock D. Science, ethics, and the making of clinical decisions. Implications for risk factor intervention. JAMA. 1988;259:3161-7.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

cover image Annals of Internal Medicine
Annals of Internal Medicine
Volume 117Number 111 December 1992
Pages: 916 - 921

History

Published in issue: 1 December 1992
Published online: 1 December 2008

Keywords

Authors

Affiliations

C. David Naylor, MD, DPhil
Barry Strauss, MSc, MD
From Sunnybrook Health Science Centre and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, North York, Ontario, and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. For current author addresses, see end of text.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. For an editable text file, please select Medlars format which will download as a .txt file. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format





Download article citation data for:
C. David Naylor, Erluo Chen, Barry Strauss. Measured Enthusiasm: Does the Method of Reporting Trial Results Alter Perceptions of Therapeutic Effectiveness?. Ann Intern Med.1992;117:916-921. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-117-11-916

View More

Get Access

Login Options:
Purchase

You will be redirected to acponline.org to sign-in to Annals to complete your purchase.

Access to EPUBs and PDFs for FREE Annals content requires users to be registered and logged in. A subscription is not required. You can create a free account below or from the following link. You will be redirected to acponline.org to create an account that will provide access to Annals. If you are accessing the Free Annals content via your institution's access, registration is not required.

Create your Free Account

You will be redirected to acponline.org to create an account that will provide access to Annals.

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub

Related in ACP Journals

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share on social media