Literature DB >> 8978112

Same information, different decisions: the influence of evidence on the management of hypertension in the elderly.

M Cranney1, T Walley.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine requires general practitioners (GPs) to act upon the results of clinical trials. Clinical trial evidence may be difficult to understand and apply in practice. AIM: To investigate whether GPs were unduly influenced in managing hypertension in the elderly by the ways in which benefits of trial results were presented, and to establish whether their current treatment of an elderly hypertensive patient was broadly in line with recent clinical trial evidence.
METHOD: Seventy-three GPs attending a refresher course were given a written questionnaire containing data from one clinical trial of treatment of hypertension in the elderly presented in four different ways (absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction, difference in event-free patients, and number of patients who had to be treated in order to prevent one clinical event), as if from four different trials. The effect of each presentation on treatment preferences was assessed using Likert scales. The results were analysed to determine whether the method of presentation of results influenced decision making. A clinical scenario was presented to investigate their current treatment preferences in an elderly hypertensive.
RESULTS: All GPs returned completed questionnaires. Relative risk reduction was the only presentation which was significantly different from the others, and was the most likely to influence prescribing. In free-text comments, 75% of GPs admitted having problems understanding statistics commonly found in medical journals. More than 90% conformed with recent clinical trial evidence for the management of hypertension.
CONCLUSION: GPs were most influenced by relative risk reduction, and were unaware of how the presentation of research results could affect treatment decisions. Most GPs freely admitted to difficulty in comprehending medical statistics. Almost all of the GPs expressed treatment decisions which were broadly in line with clinical evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8978112      PMCID: PMC1239820     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  19 in total

1.  Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions.

Authors:  L Forrow; W C Taylor; R M Arnold
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 4.965

2.  The place of judgement in medicine.

Authors:  J McCormick
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Review of prescribed treatment for children with asthma. More recent data suggest guidelines are being adhered to.

Authors:  R Martin; S Hilton; S Kerry
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-12-16

4.  Filling the lacuna between research and practice: an interview with Michael Peckham. Interview by Richard Smith.

Authors:  M Peckham
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-11-27

5.  Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians' willingness to prescribe.

Authors:  M Bobbio; B Demichelis; G Giustetto
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1994-05-14       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations.

Authors:  J M Grimshaw; I T Russell
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-11-27       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Management of science.

Authors:  B G Charlton
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-07-10       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Management guidelines in essential hypertension: report of the second working party of the British Hypertension Society.

Authors:  P Sever; G Beevers; C Bulpitt; A Lever; L Ramsay; J Reid; J Swales
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-04-10

9.  Management of raised blood pressure in New Zealand: a discussion document.

Authors:  R Jackson; P Barham; J Bills; T Birch; L McLennan; S MacMahon; T Maling
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-07-10

10.  Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness?

Authors:  C D Naylor; E Chen; B Strauss
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1992-12-01       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  28 in total

Review 1.  The effects of information framing on the practices of physicians.

Authors:  P McGettigan; K Sly; D O'Connell; S Hill; D Henry
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Evidence produced in evidence based medicine needs to be relevant.

Authors:  J Barker; D Gilbert
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-02-19

3.  Experiences of general practitioners and practice nurses of training courses in evidence-based health care: a qualitative study.

Authors:  T Greenhalgh; H R Douglas
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  General practitioners' self ratings of skills in evidence based medicine: validation study.

Authors:  Jane M Young; Paul Glasziou; Jeanette E Ward
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-04-20

5.  Same information, different decisions: format counts. Format as well as content matters in clinical information.

Authors:  J Wyatt
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-06-05

Review 6.  Numbers needed to treat derived from meta-analyses--sometimes informative, usually misleading.

Authors:  L Smeeth; A Haines; S Ebrahim
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-06-05

7.  Beneficent persuasion: techniques and ethical guidelines to improve patients' decisions.

Authors:  J S Swindell; Amy L McGuire; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2010 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.166

8.  Health professionals: how do they assess new medicines?

Authors:  Rebecca Cheng; Kirsty Cook; Sarah Dowman; Rebecca Lawn; Jemma Leary; Taryn Quinn; Kim Schroder; Nicola Smith; June Tordoff
Journal:  Pharm World Sci       Date:  2005-06

9.  A randomized comparison of patients' understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats.

Authors:  Stacey L Sheridan; Michael P Pignone; Carmen L Lewis
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 10.  Prescribers' Knowledge and Skills for Interpreting Research Results: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Leila Kahwati; Dennis Carmody; Nancy Berkman; Helen W Sullivan; Kathryn J Aikin; Jessica DeFrank
Journal:  J Contin Educ Health Prof       Date:  2017       Impact factor: 1.355

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.