Bradley C Johnston1, Pablo Alonso-Coello2, Jan O Friedrich2, Reem A Mustafa2, Kari A O Tikkinen2, Ignacio Neumann2, Per O Vandvik2, Elie A Akl2, Bruno R da Costa2, Neill K Adhikari2, Gemma Mas Dalmau2, Elise Kosunen2, Jukka Mustonen2, Mark W Crawford2, Lehana Thabane2, Gordon H Guyatt2. 1. Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (Johnston, Crawford), The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Johnston), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Child Health Evaluative Sciences (Johnston), The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ont.; Iberoamerican Cochrane Center (Alonso-Coello, Dalmau), Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau, CIBER Epidemiologiay Salud Publica, Barcelona, Spain; Departments of Critical Care and Medicine (Friedrich), St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Medicine and Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care (Friedrich), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Departments of Medicine and Biomedical and Health Informatics (Mustafa), University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo.; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Mustafa, Tikkinen, Neumann, Akl, Thabane, Guyatt), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Departments of Urology and Public Health (Tikkinen), Helsinki University Central Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; Department of Internal Medicine (Neumann), Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile; Institute of Health and Society (Vandvik), Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Medicine (Vandvik), Innlandet Hospital Trust, Division Gjövik, Norway; Clinical Epidemiology Unit (Akl), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon; Institute of Primary Health Care (da Costa), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Department of Critical Care Medicine and Sunnybrook Research Institute (Adhikari), Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ont.; Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care (Adhikari), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; School of Medicine and Centre for General Practice (Kosunen), University of Tampere and Pirkanmaa Hospital District, Tampere, Finland; School of Medicine and Department of Internal Medicine (Mustonen), University of Tampere and Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland; Physiology and Experimental Medicine (Crawford), The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ont.; Biostatistics Unit of the Centre for Evaluation of Medicines (Thabane), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Population Health Research Unit, Hamilton Health Sciences (Thabane), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Department of Medicine (Guyatt), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. bradley.johnston@sickkids.ca. 2. Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (Johnston, Crawford), The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Johnston), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Child Health Evaluative Sciences (Johnston), The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ont.; Iberoamerican Cochrane Center (Alonso-Coello, Dalmau), Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau, CIBER Epidemiologiay Salud Publica, Barcelona, Spain; Departments of Critical Care and Medicine (Friedrich), St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Medicine and Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care (Friedrich), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Departments of Medicine and Biomedical and Health Informatics (Mustafa), University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo.; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Mustafa, Tikkinen, Neumann, Akl, Thabane, Guyatt), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Departments of Urology and Public Health (Tikkinen), Helsinki University Central Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; Department of Internal Medicine (Neumann), Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile; Institute of Health and Society (Vandvik), Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Medicine (Vandvik), Innlandet Hospital Trust, Division Gjövik, Norway; Clinical Epidemiology Unit (Akl), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon; Institute of Primary Health Care (da Costa), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Department of Critical Care Medicine and Sunnybrook Research Institute (Adhikari), Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ont.; Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care (Adhikari), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; School of Medicine and Centre for General Practice (Kosunen), University of Tampere and Pirkanmaa Hospital District, Tampere, Finland; School of Medicine and Department of Internal Medicine (Mustonen), University of Tampere and Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland; Physiology and Experimental Medicine (Crawford), The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ont.; Biostatistics Unit of the Centre for Evaluation of Medicines (Thabane), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Population Health Research Unit, Hamilton Health Sciences (Thabane), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Department of Medicine (Guyatt), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of continuous outcomes typically provide enough information for decision-makers to evaluate the extent to which chance can explain apparent differences between interventions. The interpretation of the magnitude of these differences - from trivial to large - can, however, be challenging. We investigated clinicians' understanding and perceptions of usefulness of 6 statistical formats for presenting continuous outcomes from meta-analyses (standardized mean difference, minimal important difference units, mean difference in natural units, ratio of means, relative risk and risk difference). METHODS: We invited 610 staff and trainees in internal medicine and family medicine programs in 8 countries to participate. Paper-based, self-administered questionnaires presented summary estimates of hypothetical interventions versus placebo for chronic pain. The estimates showed either a small or a large effect for each of the 6 statistical formats for presenting continuous outcomes. Questions addressed participants' understanding of the magnitude of treatment effects and their perception of the usefulness of the presentation format. We randomly assigned participants 1 of 4 versions of the questionnaire, each with a different effect size (large or small) and presentation order for the 6 formats (1 to 6, or 6 to 1). RESULTS: Overall, 531 (87.0%) of the clinicians responded. Respondents best understood risk difference, followed by relative risk and ratio of means. Similarly, they perceived the dichotomous presentation of continuous outcomes (relative risk and risk difference) to be most useful. Presenting results as a standardized mean difference, the longest standing and most widely used approach, was poorly understood and perceived as least useful. INTERPRETATION: None of the presentation formats were well understood or perceived as extremely useful. Clinicians best understood the dichotomous presentations of continuous outcomes and perceived them to be the most useful. Further initiatives to help clinicians better grasp the magnitude of the treatment effect are needed.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of continuous outcomes typically provide enough information for decision-makers to evaluate the extent to which chance can explain apparent differences between interventions. The interpretation of the magnitude of these differences - from trivial to large - can, however, be challenging. We investigated clinicians' understanding and perceptions of usefulness of 6 statistical formats for presenting continuous outcomes from meta-analyses (standardized mean difference, minimal important difference units, mean difference in natural units, ratio of means, relative risk and risk difference). METHODS: We invited 610 staff and trainees in internal medicine and family medicine programs in 8 countries to participate. Paper-based, self-administered questionnaires presented summary estimates of hypothetical interventions versus placebo for chronic pain. The estimates showed either a small or a large effect for each of the 6 statistical formats for presenting continuous outcomes. Questions addressed participants' understanding of the magnitude of treatment effects and their perception of the usefulness of the presentation format. We randomly assigned participants 1 of 4 versions of the questionnaire, each with a different effect size (large or small) and presentation order for the 6 formats (1 to 6, or 6 to 1). RESULTS: Overall, 531 (87.0%) of the clinicians responded. Respondents best understood risk difference, followed by relative risk and ratio of means. Similarly, they perceived the dichotomous presentation of continuous outcomes (relative risk and risk difference) to be most useful. Presenting results as a standardized mean difference, the longest standing and most widely used approach, was poorly understood and perceived as least useful. INTERPRETATION: None of the presentation formats were well understood or perceived as extremely useful. Clinicians best understood the dichotomous presentations of continuous outcomes and perceived them to be the most useful. Further initiatives to help clinicians better grasp the magnitude of the treatment effect are needed.
Authors: Bradley C Johnston; Kristian Thorlund; Bruno R da Costa; Toshi A Furukawa; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Victor M Montori; Roman Jaeschke; Holger J Schünemann; Mohit Bhandari; Jan L Brozek; P J Devereaux; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-11-06
Authors: Daniella A Zipkin; Craig A Umscheid; Nancy L Keating; Elizabeth Allen; KoKo Aung; Rebecca Beyth; Scott Kaatz; Devin M Mann; Jeremy B Sussman; Deborah Korenstein; Connie Schardt; Avishek Nagi; Richard Sloane; David A Feldstein Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Bradley C Johnston; Donald L Patrick; Kristian Thorlund; Jason W Busse; Bruno R da Costa; Holger J Schünemann; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2013-12-21 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Neil R Bell; James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Harminder Singh; Danielle Kasperavicius; Brett D Thombs Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Neil R Bell; James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Harminder Singh; Danielle Kasperavicius; Brett D Thombs Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Neil R Bell; Roland Grad; James A Dickinson; Harminder Singh; Ainsley Elizabeth Moore; Danielle Kasperavicius; Kaylyn L Kretschmer Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Stefan Leucht; Spyridon Siafis; Rolf R Engel; Johannes Schneider-Thoma; Irene Bighelli; Andrea Cipriani; Toshi A Furukawa; John M Davis Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 7.348
Authors: Amin Mohamadi; Jimmy J Chan; Femke M A P Claessen; David Ring; Neal C Chen Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Thomas F Monaghan; Syed N Rahman; Christina W Agudelo; Alan J Wein; Jason M Lazar; Karel Everaert; Roger R Dmochowski Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 3.390