The Library
Clinicians' perceptions of reporting methods for back pain trials : a qualitative study
Tools
Tools
Tools
Froud, Robert J., Underwood, Martin, Carnes, Dawn and Eldridge, Sandra (2012) Clinicians' perceptions of reporting methods for back pain trials : a qualitative study. British Journal of General Practice, Vol.62 (No.596). pp. 151-159. doi:10.3399/bjgp12X630034 ISSN 0960-1643.
Research output not available from this repository.
Request-a-Copy directly from author or use local Library Get it For Me service.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgp12X630034
Abstract
Background: How outcomes of clinical trials are reported alters the way treatment effectiveness is perceived: clinicians interpret the outcomes of trialsmore favourably when results are presented in relative (such as risk ratio) rather than absolute terms (such as risk reduction). However, it is unclear whichmethods clinicians find easiest to interpret and use in decisionmaking. Aim: To explore whichmethods for reporting back pain trials clinicians find clearest andmost interpretable and useful to decisionmaking. Design and setting: Indepth interviews with clinicians at clinical practices/research centre. Method: Clinicians were purposively sampled by professional discipline, sex, age, and practice setting. They were presented with several different summaries of the results of the same hypothetical trial. Each summary used a different reportingmethod, and the study explored participants' preferences for eachmethod and how they would like to see future trials reported. Results: The 14 clinicians interviewed (comprising GPs, manual therapists, psychologists, a rheumatologist, and surgeons) stated that clinical trial reports were not written with theminmind. They were familiar withmean differences, proportion improved, and numbers needed to treat (NNT), but unfamiliar with standardised mean differences, odds ratios, and relative risks (RRs). They found the proportion improved, RR, and NNTmost intuitively understandable, and thought reporting between-groupmean differences, RRs, and odds ratios couldmislead. Conclusion: Clinicians stated that additional reporting methods facilitate the interpretation of trial results, and using a variety ofmethods would make results easier to interpret in context and incorporate into practice. Authors of future back pain trials should report data in a format that is accessible to clinicians. ©British Journal of General Practice.
| Item Type: | Journal Article | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects: | R Medicine > R Medicine (General) | ||||
| Divisions: | Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School | ||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | British Journal of General Practice | ||||
| Publisher: | Royal College of General Practitioners | ||||
| ISSN: | 0960-1643 | ||||
| Official Date: | March 2012 | ||||
| Dates: |
|
||||
| Volume: | Vol.62 | ||||
| Number: | No.596 | ||||
| Page Range: | pp. 151-159 | ||||
| DOI: | 10.3399/bjgp12X630034 | ||||
| Status: | Peer Reviewed | ||||
| Publication Status: | Published | ||||
| Access rights to Published version: | Restricted or Subscription Access |
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
