Abstract:Background: The success of evidence-based practice depends on the clear and effective communication of statistical information. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of using alternative statistical presentations of the same risks and risk reductions on understanding, perception, persuasiveness and behaviour of health professionals, policy makers, and consumers. Search strategy: We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to October 2007), EMBASE (1980 to October 2007), PsycLIT (1887 to October 2007), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2007, Issue 3). We reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted experts in the field. Selection criteria: We included randomized and non-randomized controlled parallel and cross-over studies. We focused on four comparisons: a comparison of statistical presentations of a risk (eg frequencies versus probabilities) and three comparisons of statistical presentation of risk reduction: relative risk reduction (RRR) versus absolute risk reduction (ARR), RRR versus number needed to treat (NNT), and ARR versus NNT. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. We graded the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. We standardized the outcome effects using adjusted standardized mean difference (SMD). Main results: We included 35 studies reporting 83 comparisons. None of the studies involved policy makers. Participants (health professionals and consumers) understood natural frequencies better than probabilities (SMD 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.93)). Compared with ARR, RRR had little or no difference in understanding (SMD 0.02 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.43)) but was perceived to be larger (SMD 0.41 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.79)) and more persuasive (SMD 0.66 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.81)). Compared with NNT, RRR was better understood (SMD 0.73 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.04)), was perceived to be larger (SMD 1.15 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.50)) and was more persuasive (SMD 0.65 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.80)). Compared with NNT, ARR was better understood (SMD 0.42 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.71)), was perceived to be larger (SMD 0.79 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.15)).There was little or no difference for persuasiveness (SMD 0.05 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.15)). The sensitivity analyses including only high quality comparisons showed consistent results for persuasiveness for all three comparisons. Overall there were no differences between health professionals and consumers. The overall quality of evidence was rated down to moderate because of the use of surrogate outcomes and/or heterogeneity. None of the comparisons assessed behaviourbehaviour. Authors' conclusions: Natural frequencies are probably better understood than probabilities. Relative risk reduction (RRR), compared with absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number needed to treat (NNT), may be perceived to be larger and is more likely to be persuasive. However, it is uncertain whether presenting RRR is likely to help people make decisions most consistent with their own values and, in fact, it could lead to misinterpretation. More research is needed to further explore this question.

A Utilitarian Perspective on Risk Quantification for Clinical Significance in Binary Outcomes

Estimate Risk Difference and Number Needed to Treat in Survival Analysis.

Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions

Alternatives to the P value: connotations of significance

Can testing clinical significance reduce false positive rates in randomized controlled trials? A snap review

Optimization the Design of Fixed and Group Sequential Three-Arm Non-Inferiority Trials with Dichotomous Endpoints of Risk Difference and Odds Ratio

Risk preferences over health: empirical estimates and implications for medical decision-making

A Bayesian Quasi-Likelihood Design for Identifying the Minimum Effective Dose and Maximum Utility Dose in Dose-Ranging Studies

Towards Treatment Effect Interpretability: A Bayesian Re-analysis of 194,129 Patient Outcomes Across 230 Oncology Trials

Clarifying the Role of the Mantel-Haenszel Risk Difference Estimator in Randomized Clinical Trials

Clinician's Approach to Advanced Statistical Methods: Win Ratios, Restricted Mean Survival Time, Responder Analyses, and Standardized Mean Differences

From Pre-test and Post-test Probabilities to Medical Decision Making

Analysis of Bayesian posterior significance and effect size indices for the two-sample t-test to support reproducible medical research

Estimating an adjusted risk difference in a cluster randomized trial with individual-level analyses

Quantitative Safety Monitoring in Clinical Trials: Application of Multiple Statistical Methodologies for Infrequent Events

A Proposed Confidence Ellipse Approach for Benefit-Risk Assessment in Clinical Trials

Novel decision-theoretic and risk-stratification metrics of predictive performance: Application to deciding who should undergo genetic testing

Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers

Subtleties in the interpretation of hazard ratios

[NNT and NNH: statistics and stochastics in the evaluation of added therapeutic value]