BACKGROUND: How outcomes of clinical trials are reported alters the way treatment effectiveness is perceived: clinicians interpret the outcomes of trials more favourably when results are presented in relative (such as risk ratio) rather than absolute terms (such as risk reduction). However, it is unclear which methods clinicians find easiest to interpret and use in decision making. AIM: To explore which methods for reporting back pain trials clinicians find clearest and most interpretable and useful to decision making. DESIGN AND SETTING: Indepth interviews with clinicians at clinical practices/research centre. METHOD: Clinicians were purposively sampled by professional discipline, sex, age, and practice setting. They were presented with several different summaries of the results of the same hypothetical trial. Each summary used a different reporting method, and the study explored participants' preferences for each method and how they would like to see future trials reported. RESULTS: The 14 clinicians interviewed (comprising GPs, manual therapists, psychologists, a rheumatologist, and surgeons) stated that clinical trial reports were not written with them in mind. They were familiar with mean differences, proportion improved, and numbers needed to treat (NNT), but unfamiliar with standardised mean differences, odds ratios, and relative risks (RRs). They found the proportion improved, RR, and NNT most intuitively understandable, and thought reporting between-group mean differences, RRs, and odds ratios could mislead. CONCLUSION: Clinicians stated that additional reporting methods facilitate the interpretation of trial results, and using a variety of methods would make results easier to interpret in context and incorporate into practice. Authors of future back pain trials should report data in a format that is accessible to clinicians.
BACKGROUND: How outcomes of clinical trials are reported alters the way treatment effectiveness is perceived: clinicians interpret the outcomes of trials more favourably when results are presented in relative (such as risk ratio) rather than absolute terms (such as risk reduction). However, it is unclear which methods clinicians find easiest to interpret and use in decision making. AIM: To explore which methods for reporting back pain trials clinicians find clearest and most interpretable and useful to decision making. DESIGN AND SETTING: Indepth interviews with clinicians at clinical practices/research centre. METHOD: Clinicians were purposively sampled by professional discipline, sex, age, and practice setting. They were presented with several different summaries of the results of the same hypothetical trial. Each summary used a different reporting method, and the study explored participants' preferences for each method and how they would like to see future trials reported. RESULTS: The 14 clinicians interviewed (comprising GPs, manual therapists, psychologists, a rheumatologist, and surgeons) stated that clinical trial reports were not written with them in mind. They were familiar with mean differences, proportion improved, and numbers needed to treat (NNT), but unfamiliar with standardised mean differences, odds ratios, and relative risks (RRs). They found the proportion improved, RR, and NNT most intuitively understandable, and thought reporting between-group mean differences, RRs, and odds ratios could mislead. CONCLUSION: Clinicians stated that additional reporting methods facilitate the interpretation of trial results, and using a variety of methods would make results easier to interpret in context and incorporate into practice. Authors of future back pain trials should report data in a format that is accessible to clinicians.
Authors: Sarah E Lamb; Zara Hansen; Ranjit Lall; Emanuela Castelnuovo; Emma J Withers; Vivien Nichols; Rachel Potter; Martin R Underwood Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-02-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Robert Froud; Sandra Eldridge; Francisco Kovacs; Alan Breen; Jenni Bolton; Kate Dunn; Julie Fritz; Anne Keller; Peter Kent; Henrik Hein Lauridsen; Raymond Ostelo; Tamar Pincus; Maurits van Tulder; Steven Vogel; Martin Underwood Journal: Eur J Pain Date: 2011-05-18 Impact factor: 3.931
Authors: Raymond W J G Ostelo; Rick A Deyo; P Stratford; Gordon Waddell; Peter Croft; Michael Von Korff; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C de Vet Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-01-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Julia M Hush; Kathryn Refshauge; Gerard Sullivan; Lorraine De Souza; Christopher G Maher; James H McAuley Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2009-01-15
Authors: Nadine E Foster; Krysia S Dziedzic; Danielle A W M van der Windt; Julie M Fritz; Elaine M Hay Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2009-01-09 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Robert Froud; Shilpa Patel; Dévan Rajendran; Philip Bright; Tom Bjørkli; Rachelle Buchbinder; Sandra Eldridge; Martin Underwood Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 3.240