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

Thomas Philip Shakespeare, Val Gebski, Johann Tang, Keith Lim, Jiade Jay Lu, Xiaojian Zhang and Guoliang Jiang
Additional contact information
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

Medical Decision Making, 2008, vol. 28, issue 1, 127-137

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

Keywords: confidence intervals; P values; confidence levels; research interpretation; decision making; randomized controlled trial; questionnaire; data interpretation; statistics; epidemiologic methods; statistical significance; clinical relevance; statistical precision. (Med Decis Making 2008; 28:127—137) (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2008
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07309640 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:1:p:127-137

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07309640

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().