Healthcare providers’ understanding of data displays of clinical trial information: a scoping review of the literature

References

• Kahwati L, Carmody D, Berkman N, Sullivan HW, Aikin KJ, DeFrank J. Prescribers’ knowledge and skills for interpreting research results: A systematic review. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2017;37(2):129–136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan CK, Burke PA, Evans SA, O'Donoghue AC, Sullivan HW. Physicians’ understanding of clinical trial data in professional prescription drug promotion. J Am Board Fam Med. 2018;31(4):645–649.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucher HC, Weinbacher M, Gyr K. Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. Br Med J. 1994;309(6957):761–764.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cooper RJ, Schriger DL, Wallace RC, Mikulich VJ, Wilkes MS. The quantity and quality of scientific graphs in pharmaceutical advertisements. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(4):294–297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer NT, Richman AR, DeFrank JT, Reyna VF, Carey LA. Improving communication of breast cancer recurrence risk. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133(2):553–561.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagerlin A, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Making numbers matter: present and future research in risk communication. Am J Health Behav. 2007;31(Suppl. 1):S47–S56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(19):1436–1443.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics. Cancer. 2008;113(12):3382–3390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trevena LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Edwards A, Gaissmaier W, Galesic M, Han PK, et al. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl. 2):S7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 19;18(1):143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elting LS, Bodey GP. Is a picture worth a thousand medical words? A randomized trial of reporting formats for medical research data. Methods Inf Med. 1991;30(2):145–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elting LS, Martin CG, Cantor SB, Rubenstein EB. Influence of data display formats on physician investigators’ decisions to stop clinical trials: prospective trial with repeated measures. Br Med J. 1999;318(7197):1527–1531.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Friederichs H, Ligges S, Weissenstein A. Using tree diagrams without numerical values in addition to relative numbers improves students’ numeracy skills: a randomized study in medical education. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(2):253–257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely ET, Wicki B, Joeris A. Improving risk literacy in surgeons. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(7):1156–1161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Retamero R, Petrova D, Cokely ET, Joeris A. Scientific risk reporting in medical journals can bias expert judgment: comparing surgeons’ risk comprehension across reporting formats. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2020;26(2):283–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuijpers W, Giesinger JM, Zabernigg A, Young T, Friend E, Tomaszewska IM, et al. Patients’ and health professionals’ understanding of and preferences for graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):595–604.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raina PS, Brehaut JC, Platt RW, Klassen TP, Moher D, St John P, et al. The influence of display and statistical factors on the interpretation of metaanalysis results by physicians. Med Care. 2005;43(12):1242–1249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder CF, Smith KC, Bantug ET, Tolbert EE, Blackford AL, Brundage MD. What do these scores mean? Presenting patient-reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability. Cancer. 2017;123(10):1848–1859.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Windish DM, Huot SJ, Green ML. Medicine residents’ understanding of the biostatistics and results in the medical literature. Jama. 2007;298(9):1010–1022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petit-Monéger A, Saillour-Glénisson F, Nouette-Gaulain K, Jouhet V, Salmi LR. Comparing graphical formats for feedback of clinical practice data. A multicenter study among anesthesiologists in France. Methods Inf Med. 2017;56(1):28–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brundage M, Bass B, Jolie R, Foley K. A knowledge translation challenge: clinical use of quality of life data from cancer clinical trials. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(7):979–985.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Solomon JB, Scherer AM, Exe NL, Tarini BA, Fagerlin A, et al. Primary care providers’ preferences and concerns regarding specific visual displays for returning hemoglobin A1c test results to patients. Med Decis Making. 2019;39(7):796–804.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baicus C, Delcea C, Dima A, Oprisan E, Jurcut C, Dan GA. Influence of decision aids on oral anticoagulant prescribing among physicians: a randomised trial. Eur J Clin Invest. 2017;47(9):649–658.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazur DJ, Hickam DH. Patients’ and physicians’ interpretations of graphic data displays. Med Decis Making. 1993;13(1):59–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren JB. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(6):608–618.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hibbard JH, Peters E. Supporting informed consumer health care decisions: data presentation approaches that facilitate the use of information in choice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2003;24:413–433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):696–713.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely ET. Designing visual aids that promote risk literacy: a systematic review of health research and evidence-based design heuristics. Hum Factors. 2017;59(4):582–627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauerland S, Seiler CM. Role of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in evidence-based medicine. World J Surg. 2005;29(5):582–587.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg W, Donald A. Evidence based medicine: an approach to clinical problem-solving. Br Med J. 1995;310(6987):1122–1126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boudewyns V, Southwell BG, DeFrank JT, Ferriola-Bruckenstein K, Halpern MT, O'Donoghue AC, et al. Patients’ understanding of oncology clinical endpoints: a literature review. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(9):1724–1735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Politi MC, Han PK, Col NF. Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):681–695.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillan D, Wickens C, Hollands J, Carswell C. Guidelines for presenting quantitative data in HFES publications. Hum Factors. 1998;40:28–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipkus IM, Hollands JG. The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;25:149–163.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar