IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v28y2008i1p127-137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Influence of the Way Results Are Presented on Research Interpretation and Medical Decision Making: The PRIMER Collaboration Randomized Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Philip Shakespeare

    (North Coast Cancer Institute, Coffs Harbour Health Campus, New South Wales, Australia, thomasshakespeare@gmail.com., PRIMER Collaboration, New South Wales, Australia)

  • Val Gebski

    (PRIMER Collaboration, New South Wales, Australia, National Health and Medical Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia)

  • Johann Tang

    (Radiotherapy Centre, The Cancer Institute, National University Hospital, Singapore)

  • Keith Lim

    (Radiotherapy Centre, The Cancer Institute, National University Hospital, Singapore)

  • Jiade Jay Lu

    (PRIMER Collaboration, New South Wales, Australia, Radiotherapy Centre, The Cancer Institute, National University Hospital, Singapore)

  • Xiaojian Zhang

    (PRIMER Collaboration, New South Wales, Australia, Shanghai Tumour Hospital, Shanghai, China)

  • Guoliang Jiang

    (Shanghai Tumour Hospital, Shanghai, China)

Abstract

Background. The manner of presentation of research results may affect how clinicians interpret research and make clinical decisions. The authors evaluate whether the use of confidence levels improve research interpretation and decision making compared with P values and 95% confidence intervals. Methods. The 2 Presentation and Interpretation of Medical Research (PRIMER) studies were 3-arm randomized trials. PRIMER 1 presented results of 5 fictitious scenarios with P values (P), P plus 95% confidence intervals (P + CI), or P, CI, and confidence levels (P + CI + CL); PRIMER 2 compared P + CI + CL, P + CI, and P + CL. Clinicians were asked to identify the correct interpretation of scenarios in terms of statistical and clinical significance and then indicate the intended decision making in terms of treatment recommendation. Results. Seventy-five and 246 clinicians participated in PRIMER 1 and PRIMER 2, respectively. In PRIMER 1, P+CI+CL was superior to P + CI and P (P

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Philip Shakespeare & Val Gebski & Johann Tang & Keith Lim & Jiade Jay Lu & Xiaojian Zhang & Guoliang Jiang, 2008. "Influence of the Way Results Are Presented on Research Interpretation and Medical Decision Making: The PRIMER Collaboration Randomized Studies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 127-137, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:1:p:127-137
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07309640
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07309640
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X07309640?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:1:p:127-137. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.