Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions.
about
Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductionsUnderstanding of statistical terms routinely used in meta-analyses: an international survey among researchersWhen can odds ratios mislead? Odds ratios should be used only in case-control studies and logistic regression analysesTips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 1. Relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction and number needed to treatHow numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision makingIdentifying patient preferences for communicating risk estimates: a descriptive pilot studyLocal anesthetic injections with or without steroid for chronic non-cancer pain: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsMultivariable risk prediction can greatly enhance the statistical power of clinical trial subgroup analysisWhat is my cancer risk? How internet-based cancer risk assessment tools communicate individualized risk estimates to the public: content analysisDoes informed consent alter elderly patients' preferences for colorectal cancer screening? Results of a randomized trial.Can postponement of an adverse outcome be used to present risk reductions to a lay audience? A population survey.Family physicians' perceptions of academic detailing: a quantitative and qualitative study.Do advertisements for antihypertensive drugs in Australia promote quality prescribing? A cross-sectional study.Laypersons' understanding of relative risk reductions: randomised cross-sectional study.Diabetes experts' reasoning about diabetes prevention studies: a questionnaire survey.Optimizing the use of patient data to improve outcomes for patients: narcotics for chronic noncancer pain.Reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners' confidence in conclusions, a three-arm randomized controlled trial.General practice registrar responses to the use of different risk communication tools in simulated consultations: a focus group studyNumber needed to treat: a useful new method of assessing the magnitude of treatment effect and its application to the management of diabetic retinopathy.The effects of information framing on the practices of physiciansCommunicating the risk reduction achieved by cholesterol reducing drugsThe effect of format on parents' understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between text, tables, and graphics.Same information, different decisions: the influence of evidence on the management of hypertension in the elderlyReviewing intuitive decision-making and uncertainty: the implications for medical education.Evidence-based patient information in diabetes.Effect of various risk/benefit trade-offs on parents' understanding of a pediatric research study.Basic statistics for clinicians: 3. Assessing the effects of treatment: measures of associationA randomized comparison of patients' understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats.Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviewsNumeracy and framing bias in epilepsy.Number-needed-to-treat (NNT)--needs treatment with care.Impact of adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews on readers' interpretation: a randomized controlled trialImpact of selective evidence presentation on judgments of health inequality trends: an experimental study.Effects of information framing on the intentions of family physicians to prescribe long-term hormone replacement therapy.Ratio measures in leading medical journals: structured review of accessibility of underlying absolute risks.Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication.Evaluating surrogate endpoints, prognostic markers, and predictive markers: Some simple themes.Interpretation of drug risk and benefit: individual and population perspectives.An evaluation of harvest plots to display results of meta-analyses in overviews of reviews: a cross-sectional study.Use of relative and absolute effect measures in reporting health inequalities: structured review.
P2860
Q24235966-6B95BE9E-C769-479C-83B6-A2297AE30E37Q24288707-6B1680EC-AE51-4A54-BA2D-F8302D096F57Q24524234-7798683E-EE17-4DEA-8461-B7120467D3C4Q24564452-80D6C9A1-3324-48E8-8E5D-5E5E09A13121Q24615211-29BE86A9-423D-4B46-B78A-94535E151D15Q24804138-9B8F6E00-3385-4A8A-9F39-AB95C7BF8508Q28069582-5B6EA936-E200-40CC-8399-A7B9508A34BDQ28196553-2BC94747-82BD-434C-AB05-792E70AFE39AQ28750489-0FAB1456-2F8B-46D3-9EFF-49D958D2BB82Q30304606-416C411E-08AA-40D9-8543-510719308620Q33280504-E7C6B331-D689-4684-BABD-D99CAE37D6D3Q33302560-EDA0D756-FC38-402D-87D4-E6C27F3759F6Q33336223-AB9F0789-11DE-4CA5-B8F2-661CCB6D3B19Q33352332-88B60234-DBF4-45ED-9594-8235C6FD61B0Q33375845-31CD2105-6181-4660-94B0-BE40E9DFD9AAQ33436392-93710831-DB3D-4408-A05D-BFAD16261274Q33617087-51DBD1DE-C77A-4787-AB4B-DE83135A2D62Q33657677-0FF7E819-B6EC-4CD6-BFE2-DB8B005DE6A0Q33668588-0ADCB3D3-8B75-4D79-AB62-A13307BED1B6Q33778872-FF8813C6-351F-43F9-8260-C0F456A6BE98Q33790731-8A9A072D-CEB1-4444-8EB4-107E7A48A870Q34042087-1E8A5ACA-7E31-4C60-A798-93E5343A4E6CQ34055328-F28E8F97-CE95-4AF6-803B-4C7471D37A3BQ34117117-F7C90772-FA20-4738-A568-CFF918C054B4Q34135625-EBE52895-2321-4368-90A1-4BD7E2F15207Q34159633-77B626DD-C7D1-4D12-9EFD-ABD257A5FB6AQ34278236-37BC3F1B-21B6-473A-9656-AAFD268CB0C6Q34285231-90CF2672-CABE-4640-9DCF-21748D57377FQ34297134-102E1E4A-7B1D-43A1-A8DF-32CDF5F532ADQ34497772-EA811F2F-0C4B-4D8E-8E59-2304597C2F25Q34550995-E80330AE-A667-4E84-B388-6E5A78FA160FQ34586642-5510B346-D7F0-474D-B75D-5243DAB60CFDQ34733816-6C5F8385-1217-426C-B102-8480FDC4F45CQ34750495-A0E2B8B4-0FF5-4269-8F12-E326D4460D80Q35225417-C4828B88-45DF-485F-B64A-399A1353DF3AQ35557031-30461C0F-2E7D-4A33-B5C0-4FEB9E862892Q35672166-9A1CBBAB-0082-4723-8AA1-20157A33540CQ35678256-E382679F-FF85-4757-8D2E-D28E52CC1F20Q35821573-FC7D9FC6-059D-4875-BDF9-8DC410C86450Q36204788-7E00C55E-6E4F-4CEA-8FFE-882AA0BC017E
P2860
Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions.
description
1992 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
1992年の論文
@ja
1992年学术文章
@wuu
1992年学术文章
@zh
1992年学术文章
@zh-cn
1992年学术文章
@zh-hans
1992年学术文章
@zh-my
1992年学术文章
@zh-sg
1992年學術文章
@yue
1992年學術文章
@zh-hant
name
Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions.
@en
Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions.
@nl
type
label
Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions.
@en
Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions.
@nl
prefLabel
Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions.
@en
Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions.
@nl
P2093
P1476
Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions.
@en
P2093
P304
P356
10.1016/0002-9343(92)90100-P
P407
P577
1992-02-01T00:00:00Z