Misleading communication of risk

@article{Gigerenzer2010MisleadingCO,
  title={Misleading communication of risk},
  author={Gerd Gigerenzer and Odette Wegwarth and Markus A. Feufel},
  journal={BMJ : British Medical Journal},
  year={2010},
  volume={341}
}
Editors should enforce transparent reporting in abstracts 
Transparent communication of health risks
TLDR
Transparent communication of health risks is urged to be considered as a matter of urgency to improve the quality of public information about health risks.
Reporting of absolute risk
In arguing that abstracts should always contain absolute risks, Gigerenzer and colleagues do not tackle the practical limitations of this recommendation.1 They do not mention for whom the absolute
Additional commentary on deception in statin research
TLDR
Response to: Ferenci T. Absolute risk reduction may depend on the duration of the follow-up, as well as the quality of the treatment, in patients with known or suspected cancer.
A cautious note on household surveys in poor settings
TLDR
The World Health Organization’s HIV prevalence estimates have recently been adjusted downwards, mostly because of new data from population based surveys, but such surveys are limited by surveyor bias and this could disproportionately influence (worldwide) HIV prevalence Estimates.
Risk Communication in Health
TLDR
This chapter discusses how transparent risk communication can contribute to informed patients and how transparency can be achieved, and proposes further research to implement the concepts of transparency in risk communication.
Doctors and Patients’ Susceptibility to Framing Bias: A Randomized Trial
TLDR
Describing clinical trial results as absolute risks is the least biased format, for both doctors and patients, and presenting several risk formats should be encouraged.
Correction: A methodological survey of the analysis, reporting and interpretation of Absolute Risk ReductiOn in systematic revieWs (ARROW): a study protocol
TLDR
The objectives of this study are to determine the proportion of systematic reviews that report absolute measures of effect for the most important outcomes, and ascertain how they are analyzed, reported and interpreted.
Patient and Physician Preferences for Reporting Research Findings.
TLDR
Patients and physicians who rely on study findings for making informed decisions often prefer relative measures, and patients perceived changes in risk as larger when they were presented using multiplicative measures such as risk ratios than when presented as additive measures.
A methodological survey of the analysis, reporting and interpretation of Absolute Risk ReductiOn in systematic revieWs (ARROW): a study protocol
TLDR
The proportion of systematic reviews that report absolute measures of effect for the most important outcomes, and how they are analyzed, reported and interpreted are determined to influence recommendations on reporting, conduct and interpretation of absolute estimates.
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 12 REFERENCES
Improving Depiction of Benefits and Harms: Analyses of Studies of Well-Known Therapeutics and Review of High-Impact Medical Journals
TLDR
It is concluded that consistently depicting benefit and harm information in frequencies can substantially improve the communication of benefits and harms.
Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight
TLDR
A glance at the literature shows a shocking lack of statistical understanding of the outcomes of modern technologies, from standard screening tests for HIV infection to DNA evidence.
Ratio measures in leading medical journals: structured review of accessibility of underlying absolute risks
Objective To examine the accessibility of absolute risk in articles reporting ratio measures in leading medical journals. Design Structured review of abstracts presenting ratio measures. Setting
Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics
TLDR
Evidence is provided that statistical illiteracy is common to patients, journalists, and physicians and that information pamphlets, Web sites, leaflets distributed by the pharmaceutical industry, and even medical journals often report evidence in nontransparent forms that suggest big benefits of featured interventions and small harms.
The public health implications of the 1995 'pill scare'.
  • A. Furedi
  • Medicine
    Human reproduction update
  • 1999
TLDR
National data suggest a strong association between the pill scare and a substantial increase in the number of unintended pregnancies, particularly significant among younger women, with use of oral contraception falling from 40 to 27% of under 16s between 1995-1996 and 1996-1997.
A Meta-analysis of the Effects of Presenting Treatment Benefits in Different Formats
  • J. Covey
  • Medicine
    Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making
  • 2007
TLDR
The meta-analysis showed that treatments were evaluated more favorably when the relative risk format was used rather than the absolute risk or number needed to treat format, but the effects are heterogeneous and seem to be moderated by key differences between the methodologies used.
Launching the century of the patient
TLDR
Governments and health institutions need to change course and provide honest and transparent information to enable better doctors, better patients, and, ultimately, better health care.
Public Knowledge of Benefits of Breast and Prostate Cancer Screening in Europe
TLDR
Women and men aged 50–69 years, and thus targeted by screening programs, were not substantially better informed about the benefits of mammography and PSA screening, respectively, than men and women overall.
Hormonal contraception and risk of venous thromboembolism: national follow-up study
TLDR
The risk of venous thrombosis in current users of combined oral contraceptives decreases with duration of use and decreasing oestrogen dose.
...
1
2
...