Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
For decades, the p value-based interpretation and reporting of results dominated the publications. Nowadays, the scientific community agrees that this binary approach is not enough. A systemic reform is necessary for moving from this binary approach to some other non-binary options. Some of them, which were discussed in the last Cochrane Handbook version (2019), are the point estimate, the confidence interval, and the minimal important difference, suggesting some narrative statements.
However, it is not clear how healthcare professionals and consumers agree with this approach and, even more important, whether all retrieve the same conclusions when they look at some specific results.
Objectives:
To evaluate how healthcare professionals and consumers interpret results and which preferred reporting style is for them.
Methods:
We are conducting an online survey among healthcare professionals and consumers. These stakeholders have to choose the binary or non-binary option that better expresses the results for the following scenario:
After exhaustive literature searches, a systematic review identified only two pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of drug X versus placebo (P) in patients with a rare genetic disease. The risk of bias for all domains was low in both RCTs, and there were no important differences in populations and results between both studies. The combined results were:
Mortality risk: X 26%(10/39) and P 45%(18/40)
Risk difference: X 19% lower (95% CI 40% lower to 1% higher)
Risk Ratio: 0.57 (95% CI 0.30 a 1.08) P = 0.0721
*95% CI: 95% Confidence Interval (represents the range of values you expect your estimate to fall between if you redo your trial, within a 95% level of confidence).
Results:
Will be shown at the colloquium.
Conclusions:
It will be interesting to see which preferred reporting statements are for healthcare professionals and for consumers. Besides, we will know the level of agreement or disagreement among these groups, which is critical for the patient-physician communication process.
Patient, public and/or healthcare consumer involvement: Healthcare professionals and consumers responded to the survey.
For decades, the p value-based interpretation and reporting of results dominated the publications. Nowadays, the scientific community agrees that this binary approach is not enough. A systemic reform is necessary for moving from this binary approach to some other non-binary options. Some of them, which were discussed in the last Cochrane Handbook version (2019), are the point estimate, the confidence interval, and the minimal important difference, suggesting some narrative statements.
However, it is not clear how healthcare professionals and consumers agree with this approach and, even more important, whether all retrieve the same conclusions when they look at some specific results.
Objectives:
To evaluate how healthcare professionals and consumers interpret results and which preferred reporting style is for them.
Methods:
We are conducting an online survey among healthcare professionals and consumers. These stakeholders have to choose the binary or non-binary option that better expresses the results for the following scenario:
After exhaustive literature searches, a systematic review identified only two pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of drug X versus placebo (P) in patients with a rare genetic disease. The risk of bias for all domains was low in both RCTs, and there were no important differences in populations and results between both studies. The combined results were:
Mortality risk: X 26%(10/39) and P 45%(18/40)
Risk difference: X 19% lower (95% CI 40% lower to 1% higher)
Risk Ratio: 0.57 (95% CI 0.30 a 1.08) P = 0.0721
*95% CI: 95% Confidence Interval (represents the range of values you expect your estimate to fall between if you redo your trial, within a 95% level of confidence).
Results:
Will be shown at the colloquium.
Conclusions:
It will be interesting to see which preferred reporting statements are for healthcare professionals and for consumers. Besides, we will know the level of agreement or disagreement among these groups, which is critical for the patient-physician communication process.
Patient, public and/or healthcare consumer involvement: Healthcare professionals and consumers responded to the survey.