Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions.

Elie A. Akl, Andrew D. Oxman, Jeph Herrin, Gunn E. Vist, Irene Terrenato, Francesca Sperati, Cecilia Costiniuk, Diana Blank, Holger Schünemann

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

139 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The success of evidence-based practice depends on the clear and effective communication of statistical information. To evaluate the effects of using alternative statistical presentations of the same risks and risk reductions on understanding, perception, persuasiveness and behaviour of health professionals, policy makers, and consumers. We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to October 2007), EMBASE (1980 to October 2007), PsycLIT (1887 to October 2007), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2007, Issue 3). We reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted experts in the field. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled parallel and cross-over studies. We focused on four comparisons: a comparison of statistical presentations of a risk (eg frequencies versus probabilities) and three comparisons of statistical presentation of risk reduction: relative risk reduction (RRR) versus absolute risk reduction (ARR), RRR versus number needed to treat (NNT), and ARR versus NNT. Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. We graded the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. We standardized the outcome effects using adjusted standardized mean difference (SMD). We included 35 studies reporting 83 comparisons. None of the studies involved policy makers. Participants (health professionals and consumers) understood natural frequencies better than probabilities (SMD 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.93)). Compared with ARR, RRR had little or no difference in understanding (SMD 0.02 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.43)) but was perceived to be larger (SMD 0.41 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.79)) and more persuasive (SMD 0.66 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.81)). Compared with NNT, RRR was better understood (SMD 0.73 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.04)), was perceived to be larger (SMD 1.15 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.50)) and was more persuasive (SMD 0.65 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.80)). Compared with NNT, ARR was better understood (SMD 0.42 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.71)), was perceived to be larger (SMD 0.79 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.15)).There was little or no difference for persuasiveness (SMD 0.05 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.15)). The sensitivity analyses including only high quality comparisons showed consistent results for persuasiveness for all three comparisons. Overall there were no differences between health professionals and consumers. The overall quality of evidence was rated down to moderate because of the use of surrogate outcomes and/or heterogeneity. None of the comparisons assessed behaviourbehaviour. Natural frequencies are probably better understood than probabilities. Relative risk reduction (RRR), compared with absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number needed to treat (NNT), may be perceived to be larger and is more likely to be persuasive. However, it is uncertain whether presenting RRR is likely to help people make decisions most consistent with their own values and, in fact, it could lead to misinterpretation. More research is needed to further explore this question.

Original languageEnglish
JournalThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews
Volume3
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Fingerprint

Numbers Needed To Treat
Risk Reduction Behavior
Confidence Intervals
Administrative Personnel
Evidence-Based Practice
Health
Health Policy
MEDLINE
Cross-Over Studies
Libraries
Communication
Research Personnel

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Akl, E. A., Oxman, A. D., Herrin, J., Vist, G. E., Terrenato, I., Sperati, F., ... Schünemann, H. (2011). Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 3.

Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. / Akl, Elie A.; Oxman, Andrew D.; Herrin, Jeph; Vist, Gunn E.; Terrenato, Irene; Sperati, Francesca; Costiniuk, Cecilia; Blank, Diana; Schünemann, Holger.

In: The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Vol. 3, 2011.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Akl, EA, Oxman, AD, Herrin, J, Vist, GE, Terrenato, I, Sperati, F, Costiniuk, C, Blank, D & Schünemann, H 2011, 'Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions.', The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, vol. 3.
Akl, Elie A. ; Oxman, Andrew D. ; Herrin, Jeph ; Vist, Gunn E. ; Terrenato, Irene ; Sperati, Francesca ; Costiniuk, Cecilia ; Blank, Diana ; Schünemann, Holger. / Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. In: The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2011 ; Vol. 3.
@article{9413b50303c343948ec7acd8f4c40399,
title = "Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions.",
abstract = "The success of evidence-based practice depends on the clear and effective communication of statistical information. To evaluate the effects of using alternative statistical presentations of the same risks and risk reductions on understanding, perception, persuasiveness and behaviour of health professionals, policy makers, and consumers. We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to October 2007), EMBASE (1980 to October 2007), PsycLIT (1887 to October 2007), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2007, Issue 3). We reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted experts in the field. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled parallel and cross-over studies. We focused on four comparisons: a comparison of statistical presentations of a risk (eg frequencies versus probabilities) and three comparisons of statistical presentation of risk reduction: relative risk reduction (RRR) versus absolute risk reduction (ARR), RRR versus number needed to treat (NNT), and ARR versus NNT. Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. We graded the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. We standardized the outcome effects using adjusted standardized mean difference (SMD). We included 35 studies reporting 83 comparisons. None of the studies involved policy makers. Participants (health professionals and consumers) understood natural frequencies better than probabilities (SMD 0.69 (95{\%} confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.93)). Compared with ARR, RRR had little or no difference in understanding (SMD 0.02 (95{\%} CI -0.39 to 0.43)) but was perceived to be larger (SMD 0.41 (95{\%} CI 0.03 to 0.79)) and more persuasive (SMD 0.66 (95{\%} CI 0.51 to 0.81)). Compared with NNT, RRR was better understood (SMD 0.73 (95{\%} CI 0.43 to 1.04)), was perceived to be larger (SMD 1.15 (95{\%} CI 0.80 to 1.50)) and was more persuasive (SMD 0.65 (95{\%} CI 0.51 to 0.80)). Compared with NNT, ARR was better understood (SMD 0.42 (95{\%} CI 0.12 to 0.71)), was perceived to be larger (SMD 0.79 (95{\%} CI 0.43 to 1.15)).There was little or no difference for persuasiveness (SMD 0.05 (95{\%} CI -0.04 to 0.15)). The sensitivity analyses including only high quality comparisons showed consistent results for persuasiveness for all three comparisons. Overall there were no differences between health professionals and consumers. The overall quality of evidence was rated down to moderate because of the use of surrogate outcomes and/or heterogeneity. None of the comparisons assessed behaviourbehaviour. Natural frequencies are probably better understood than probabilities. Relative risk reduction (RRR), compared with absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number needed to treat (NNT), may be perceived to be larger and is more likely to be persuasive. However, it is uncertain whether presenting RRR is likely to help people make decisions most consistent with their own values and, in fact, it could lead to misinterpretation. More research is needed to further explore this question.",
author = "Akl, {Elie A.} and Oxman, {Andrew D.} and Jeph Herrin and Vist, {Gunn E.} and Irene Terrenato and Francesca Sperati and Cecilia Costiniuk and Diana Blank and Holger Sch{\"u}nemann",
year = "2011",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
journal = "Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews",
issn = "1361-6137",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions.

AU - Akl, Elie A.

AU - Oxman, Andrew D.

AU - Herrin, Jeph

AU - Vist, Gunn E.

AU - Terrenato, Irene

AU - Sperati, Francesca

AU - Costiniuk, Cecilia

AU - Blank, Diana

AU - Schünemann, Holger

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - The success of evidence-based practice depends on the clear and effective communication of statistical information. To evaluate the effects of using alternative statistical presentations of the same risks and risk reductions on understanding, perception, persuasiveness and behaviour of health professionals, policy makers, and consumers. We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to October 2007), EMBASE (1980 to October 2007), PsycLIT (1887 to October 2007), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2007, Issue 3). We reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted experts in the field. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled parallel and cross-over studies. We focused on four comparisons: a comparison of statistical presentations of a risk (eg frequencies versus probabilities) and three comparisons of statistical presentation of risk reduction: relative risk reduction (RRR) versus absolute risk reduction (ARR), RRR versus number needed to treat (NNT), and ARR versus NNT. Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. We graded the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. We standardized the outcome effects using adjusted standardized mean difference (SMD). We included 35 studies reporting 83 comparisons. None of the studies involved policy makers. Participants (health professionals and consumers) understood natural frequencies better than probabilities (SMD 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.93)). Compared with ARR, RRR had little or no difference in understanding (SMD 0.02 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.43)) but was perceived to be larger (SMD 0.41 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.79)) and more persuasive (SMD 0.66 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.81)). Compared with NNT, RRR was better understood (SMD 0.73 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.04)), was perceived to be larger (SMD 1.15 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.50)) and was more persuasive (SMD 0.65 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.80)). Compared with NNT, ARR was better understood (SMD 0.42 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.71)), was perceived to be larger (SMD 0.79 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.15)).There was little or no difference for persuasiveness (SMD 0.05 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.15)). The sensitivity analyses including only high quality comparisons showed consistent results for persuasiveness for all three comparisons. Overall there were no differences between health professionals and consumers. The overall quality of evidence was rated down to moderate because of the use of surrogate outcomes and/or heterogeneity. None of the comparisons assessed behaviourbehaviour. Natural frequencies are probably better understood than probabilities. Relative risk reduction (RRR), compared with absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number needed to treat (NNT), may be perceived to be larger and is more likely to be persuasive. However, it is uncertain whether presenting RRR is likely to help people make decisions most consistent with their own values and, in fact, it could lead to misinterpretation. More research is needed to further explore this question.

AB - The success of evidence-based practice depends on the clear and effective communication of statistical information. To evaluate the effects of using alternative statistical presentations of the same risks and risk reductions on understanding, perception, persuasiveness and behaviour of health professionals, policy makers, and consumers. We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to October 2007), EMBASE (1980 to October 2007), PsycLIT (1887 to October 2007), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2007, Issue 3). We reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted experts in the field. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled parallel and cross-over studies. We focused on four comparisons: a comparison of statistical presentations of a risk (eg frequencies versus probabilities) and three comparisons of statistical presentation of risk reduction: relative risk reduction (RRR) versus absolute risk reduction (ARR), RRR versus number needed to treat (NNT), and ARR versus NNT. Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. We graded the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. We standardized the outcome effects using adjusted standardized mean difference (SMD). We included 35 studies reporting 83 comparisons. None of the studies involved policy makers. Participants (health professionals and consumers) understood natural frequencies better than probabilities (SMD 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.93)). Compared with ARR, RRR had little or no difference in understanding (SMD 0.02 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.43)) but was perceived to be larger (SMD 0.41 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.79)) and more persuasive (SMD 0.66 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.81)). Compared with NNT, RRR was better understood (SMD 0.73 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.04)), was perceived to be larger (SMD 1.15 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.50)) and was more persuasive (SMD 0.65 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.80)). Compared with NNT, ARR was better understood (SMD 0.42 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.71)), was perceived to be larger (SMD 0.79 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.15)).There was little or no difference for persuasiveness (SMD 0.05 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.15)). The sensitivity analyses including only high quality comparisons showed consistent results for persuasiveness for all three comparisons. Overall there were no differences between health professionals and consumers. The overall quality of evidence was rated down to moderate because of the use of surrogate outcomes and/or heterogeneity. None of the comparisons assessed behaviourbehaviour. Natural frequencies are probably better understood than probabilities. Relative risk reduction (RRR), compared with absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number needed to treat (NNT), may be perceived to be larger and is more likely to be persuasive. However, it is uncertain whether presenting RRR is likely to help people make decisions most consistent with their own values and, in fact, it could lead to misinterpretation. More research is needed to further explore this question.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79953271799&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79953271799&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 21412897

AN - SCOPUS:79953271799

VL - 3

JO - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

JF - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

SN - 1361-6137

ER -