Division of clinical epidemiology, University Hospitals of Geneva, 4 rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, CH-1211, Geneva, Switzerland.
J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Dec;26(12):1411-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1810-x. Epub 2011 Jul 27.
Framing of risk influences the perceptions of treatment benefit.
To determine which risk framing format corresponds best to comprehensive multi-faceted information, and to compare framing bias in doctors and in patients.
Randomized mail surveys.
One thousand four hundred and thirty-one doctors (56% response rate) and 1121 recently hospitalized patients (65% response rate).
Respondents were asked to interpret the results of a hypothetical clinical trial comparing an old and a new drug. They were randomly assigned to the following framing formats: absolute survival (new drug: 96% versus old drug: 94%), absolute mortality (4% versus 6%), relative mortality reduction (reduction by a third) or all three (fully informed condition). The new drug was reported to cause more side-effects.
Rating of the new drug as more effective than the old drug.
The proportions of doctors who rated the new drug as more effective varied by risk presentation format (abolute survival 51.8%, absolute mortality 68.3%, relative mortality reduction 93.8%, and fully informed condition 69.8%, p < 0.001). In patients these proportions were similar (abolute survival 51.7%, absolute mortality 66.8%, relative mortality reduction 89.3%, and fully informed condition 71.2%, p < 0.001). In both doctors (p = 0.72) and patients (p = 0.23) the fully informed condition was similar to the absolute risk format, but it differed significantly from the other conditions (all p < 0.01). None of the differences between doctors and patients were significant (all p > 0.1). In comparison to the fully informed condition, the odds ratio of greater perceived effectiveness was 0.45 for absolute survival (p < 0.001), 0.89 for absolute mortality (p = 0.29), and 4.40 for relative mortality reduction (p < 0.001).
Framing bias affects doctors and patients similarly. Describing clinical trial results as absolute risks is the least biased format, for both doctors and patients. Presenting several risk formats (on both absolute and relative scales) should be encouraged.
风险框架会影响对治疗益处的看法。
确定哪种风险框架格式最能对应综合的多方面信息,并比较医生和患者的框架偏见。
随机邮件调查。
1431 名医生(56%的回复率)和 1121 名最近住院的患者(65%的回复率)。
要求受访者解释一项比较旧药和新药的假设临床试验结果。他们被随机分配到以下框架格式:绝对生存率(新药:96%对旧药:94%)、绝对死亡率(4%对 6%)、相对死亡率降低(降低三分之一)或全部三个(充分知情的情况)。报告新药会引起更多的副作用。
将新药评为比旧药更有效的程度。
医生中认为新药比旧药更有效的比例因风险呈现格式而异(绝对生存率 51.8%,绝对死亡率 68.3%,相对死亡率降低 93.8%,充分知情条件 69.8%,p<0.001)。在患者中,这些比例相似(绝对生存率 51.7%,绝对死亡率 66.8%,相对死亡率降低 89.3%,充分知情条件 71.2%,p<0.001)。在医生(p=0.72)和患者(p=0.23)中,充分知情的条件与绝对风险格式相似,但与其他条件显著不同(均 p<0.01)。医生和患者之间的差异均无统计学意义(均 p>0.1)。与充分知情条件相比,绝对生存率的感知有效性更高的优势比为 0.45(p<0.001),绝对死亡率为 0.89(p=0.29),相对死亡率降低为 4.40(p<0.001)。
框架偏见会对医生和患者产生类似的影响。对于医生和患者来说,将临床试验结果描述为绝对风险是最没有偏见的格式。应鼓励呈现多种风险格式(包括绝对和相对比例)。