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.

Risk management in the use of published statistical results for policy decisions

Understanding the implications of low knowledge and high uncertainty in risk studies

Common Statistical Errors in Scientific Investigations: A Simple Guide to Avoid Unfounded Decisions

Irreproducibility; Nothing is More Predictable

Mitigating Included- and Omitted-Variable Bias in Estimates of Disparate Impact

Anytime-Valid Generalized Universal Inference on Risk Minimizers

Privacy and Statistical Risk: Formalisms and Minimax Bounds

Knowing When to Pass: The Effect of AI Reliability in Risky Decision Contexts

Semantic and Cognitive Tools to Aid Statistical Science: Replace Confidence and Significance by Compatibility and Surprise

Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions

Estimating risk preferences integrating insurance choices with subjective beliefs

A novel scaling approach for unbiased adjustment of risk estimators

How sure are we? Two approaches to statistical inference

Considering Risk Aversion in Economic Evaluation: A Rank Dependent Approach

Limitations of P-Values and $R^2$ for Stepwise Regression Building: A Fairness Demonstration in Health Policy Risk Adjustment

On (assessing) the fairness of risk score models

Pitfalls and potentials in simulation studies: Questionable research practices in comparative simulation studies allow for spurious claims of superiority of any method

How Uncertainty Matters Under Risk Neutrality

The ineffectiveness of coherent risk measures

A Set of Estimation and Decision Preference Experiments for Exploring Risk Assessment Biases in Engineering Students

Risk preferences and risk perceptions in insurance experiments: some methodological challenges