Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Mar;62(596):e151-9.
doi: 10.3399/bjgp12X630034.

Clinicians' perceptions of reporting methods for back pain trials: a qualitative study

Robert Froud  1 , Martin Underwood, Dawn Carnes, Sandra Eldridge
Affiliations

Clinicians' perceptions of reporting methods for back pain trials: a qualitative study

Robert Froud et al. Br J Gen Pract. 2012 Mar.

Abstract

Background: How outcomes of clinical trials are reported alters the way treatment effectiveness is perceived: clinicians interpret the outcomes of trials more favourably when results are presented in relative (such as risk ratio) rather than absolute terms (such as risk reduction). However, it is unclear which methods clinicians find easiest to interpret and use in decision making.

Aim: To explore which methods for reporting back pain trials clinicians find clearest and most interpretable and useful to decision making.

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 reporting method, and the study explored participants' preferences for each method 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 them in mind. They were familiar with mean 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 NNT most intuitively understandable, and thought reporting between-group mean differences, RRs, and odds ratios could mislead.

Conclusion: Clinicians stated that additional reporting methods facilitate the interpretation of trial results, and using a variety of methods 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Associations between participant attributes and interpreting results. The figure shows how clinicians' levels of research experience and recall of statistics training might affect evaluation of research and trust placed in the authors'/researcher's conclusions.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

  • Calling time on the 10-minute consultation.
    Silverman J, Kinnersley P. Silverman J, et al. Br J Gen Pract. 2012 Mar;62(596):118-9. doi: 10.3399/bjgp12X625102. Br J Gen Pract. 2012. PMID: 22429410 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

References

    1. McGettigan P, Dianne S, O'Connell K, et al. The effects of information framing on the practices of physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14(10):633–642. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Covey J. A meta-analysis of the effects of presenting treatment benefits in different formats. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):638–654. - PubMed
    1. UK BEAM Trial Team. United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. BMJ. 2004;329(7479):1377–1381. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Witt CM, Jena S, Selim D, et al. Pragmatic randomized trial evaluating the clinical and economic effectiveness of acupuncture for chronic low back pain. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164(5):487–496. - PubMed
    1. Hay EM, Mullis R, Lewis M, et al. Comparison of physical treatments versus a brief pain-management programme for back pain in primary care: a randomised clinical trial in physiotherapy practice. Lancet. 2005;365(9476):2024–2030. - PubMed

Publication types