Author
Listed:
- Helge Giese
(Heisenberg Chair for Medical Risk Literacy and Evidence-based Decisions, Charité– Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany)
- Wolfgang Gaissmaier
(Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany)
- Oliver Kuss
(Institute for Biometrics and Epidemiology, German Diabetes Center, Leibniz Institute for Diabetes Research at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
Centre for Health and Society, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany)
- Odette Wegwarth
(Heisenberg Chair for Medical Risk Literacy and Evidence-based Decisions, Charité– Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany)
Abstract
Background Time-to-event outcomes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often communicated without clearly conveying how treatment effects evolve over time. This can limit clinicians’ ability to interpret results and support patient decision making. Methods We conducted an online experiment with 250 German general practitioners in April 2024. Participants evaluated treatment effects presented in 4 common formats: hazard ratios, prolongation of life, restricted mean survival time (RMST), and absolute risk reduction. We assessed 1) understanding, defined as the ability to correctly compare effect sizes (small, medium, large), and 2) acceptability of each format. We also tested whether providing baseline risk information (control group outcomes) improved performance. Results Participants’ effectiveness ratings did not differ between small, medium, and large treatment effects in any format. RMST presentations were judged less effective but more acceptable than the other formats. Providing baseline risk information did not influence effectiveness ratings or acceptance. Limitations The use of a convenience sample may limit generalizability. Conclusions General practitioners struggled to interpret time-to-event treatment effects across all formats. Although RMST was preferred, no format supported accurate understanding of effect size. Implications Current approaches may not adequately support communication of time-to-event outcomes in clinical practice. More effective strategies are needed, likely combining absolute time-based measures with clear contextual information such as baseline risk. Registration: OSF 10.17605/OSF.IO/U69YM Highlights Time-to-event outcomes from randomized trials are difficult for clinicians to interpret. General practitioners were unable to distinguish between small, medium, and large treatment effects across formats. Restricted mean survival time was preferred but did not improve understanding of time-to-event effects. Current formats do not support communication of time-to-event outcomes in clinical decision making.
Suggested Citation
Helge Giese & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Oliver Kuss & Odette Wegwarth, 2026.
"Communicating Time-to-Event Treatment Effects in Randomized Trials: A Randomized Experiment among General Practitioners,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 46(6), pages 709-715, August.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:46:y:2026:i:6:p:709-715
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X261446622
Download full text from publisher
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:46:y:2026:i:6:p:709-715. 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.