Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Laypersons' understanding of relative risk reductions: Randomised cross-sectional study

By Lene Sorensen, Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, Ivar S Kristiansen, Jørgen Nexøe and Jesper B Nielsen
Topics: Research Article
Publisher: BioMed Central
OAI identifier: oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:2494548
Provided by: PubMed Central
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g... (external link)
  • Suggested articles

    Citations

    1. (2002). Can we individualize the 'number needed to treat'? An empirical study of summary effect measures in meta-analyses.
    2. (1995). CD: Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients' acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Making
    3. (2003). Edwards A: Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ
    4. (2000). et al.: The effectiveness of one-to-one risk communication interventions in health care: a systematic review. Med Decis Making
    5. (2005). Gigerenzer G: Benign breast disease-the risks of communicating risk.
    6. (1994). Giustetto G: Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians' willingness to prescribe. Lancet
    7. (2007). Improving depiction of benefits and harms – Analyses of studies of wel-known therapeutics and review of high-impact medical journals. Med Care
    8. (2003). IS: A randomized trial of laypersons' perception of the benefit of osteoporosis therapy: Number needed to treat versus postponement of hip fracture. Clin Ther
    9. (2002). JB: Effects of baseline risk information on social and individual choices. Med Decis Making
    10. (2005). JB: Influence of number needed to treat, costs and outcome on preferences for a preventive drug. Fam Pract
    11. (2002). JB: Number needed to treat: easily understood and intuitively meaningful? Theoretical considerations and a randomized trial.
    12. (1983). Kahnemann D: Extensional vs intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review
    13. (2003). Lewis CL: A randomized comparison of patients' understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats.
    14. (1999). Marteau TM: Psychological impact of predicting individuals' risks of illness: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med
    15. (2007). NJ: Can postponement of an adverse outcome be used to present risk reductions to a lay audience? A population survey. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
    16. (1996). Same information, different decisions: the influence of evidence on the management of hypertension in the elderly.
    17. (1953). Theory of games and economic behavior. 3rd edition.
    18. (1995). TJ: Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. BMJ
    19. (1973). Tversky A: On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review
    20. (1990). Written case simulations: do they predict physicians' behavior?

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.