Literature DB >> 28097303

Clinicians' Expectations of the Benefits and Harms of Treatments, Screening, and Tests: A Systematic Review.

Tammy C Hoffmann1, Chris Del Mar1.   

Abstract

Importance: Inaccurate clinician expectations of the benefits and harms of interventions can profoundly influence decision making and may be contributing to increasing intervention overuse. Objective: To systematically review all studies that have quantitatively assessed clinicians' expectations of the benefits and/or harms of any treatment, test, or screening test. Evidence Review: A comprehensive search strategy of 4 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO) from the start years to March 17-20, 2015, with no language or study type restriction, was performed. Searches were also conducted on cited references of the included studies, and experts and study authors were contacted. Two researchers independently evaluated methodologic quality and extracted participants' estimates of benefit and harms and authors' contemporaneous estimates. Findings: Of the 8166 records screened, 48 articles (13 011 clinicians) were eligible. Twenty studies focused on treatment, 20 on medical imaging, and 8 on screening. Of the 48 studies, 30 (67%) assessed only harm expectations, 9 (20%) evaluated only benefit expectations, and 6 (13%) assessed both benefit and harm expectations. Among the studies comparing benefit expectations with a correct answer (total of 28 outcomes), most participants provided correct estimation for only 3 outcomes (11%). Of the studies comparing expectations of harm with a correct answer (total of 69 outcomes), a majority of participants correctly estimated harm for 9 outcomes (13%). Where overestimation or underestimation data were provided, most participants overestimated benefit for 7 (32%) and underestimated benefit for 2 (9%) of the 22 outcomes, and underestimated harm for 20 (34%) and overestimated harm for 3 (5%) of the 58 outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Clinicians rarely had accurate expectations of benefits or harms, with inaccuracies in both directions. However, clinicians more often underestimated rather than overestimated harms and overestimated rather than underestimated benefits. Inaccurate perceptions about the benefits and harms of interventions are likely to result in suboptimal clinical management choices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28097303     DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.8254

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  119 in total

1.  Measuring Hospital-Acquired Complications Associated With Low-Value Care.

Authors:  Tim Badgery-Parker; Sallie-Anne Pearson; Susan Dunn; Adam G Elshaug
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 2.  Tolerance of Uncertainty and the Practice of Emergency Medicine.

Authors:  Timothy F Platts-Mills; Justine M Nagurney; Edward R Melnick
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2019-12-23       Impact factor: 5.721

3.  On Patient Safety: Differential Standards for Medical Evidence Risks Patient Safety.

Authors:  James Rickert
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  The DGAV risk calculator: development and validation of statistical models for a web-based instrument predicting complications of colorectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  Alexander Crispin; Carsten Klinger; Anna Rieger; Brigitte Strahwald; Kai Lehmann; Heinz-Johannes Buhr; Ulrich Mansmann
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2017-08-10       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in endocrinology: an audit of methods, reporting, and performance.

Authors:  Gabriela Spencer-Bonilla; Naykky Singh Ospina; Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez; Juan P Brito; Nicole Iñiguez-Ariza; Shrikant Tamhane; Patricia J Erwin; M Hassan Murad; Victor M Montori
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2017-06-05       Impact factor: 3.633

6. 

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Nicholas Pimlott; Roland Grad; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Brenda J Wilson; Stéphane Groulx; Guylène Thériault; Neil R Bell
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 3.275

7.  Screening: when things go wrong.

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Nicholas Pimlott; Roland Grad; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Brenda J Wilson; Stéphane Groulx; Guylène Thériault; Neil R Bell
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 3.275

8.  Antibiotic Prescribing Choices and Their Comparative C. Difficile Infection Risks: A Longitudinal Case-Cohort Study.

Authors:  Kevin Antoine Brown; Bradley Langford; Kevin L Schwartz; Christina Diong; Gary Garber; Nick Daneman
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 9.079

9.  Assessment of Lung Cancer Screening Program Websites.

Authors:  Stephen D Clark; Daniel S Reuland; Chineme Enyioha; Daniel E Jonas
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 21.873

10.  Women's Awareness of and Responses to Messages About Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment: Results From a 2016 National Survey.

Authors:  Rebekah H Nagler; Erika Franklin Fowler; Sarah E Gollust
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.983

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.