Cochrane · systematic review · CD006776
Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions
Akl, EA, Oxman, AD, Herrin, J, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2011 · Cochrane Library
Consumers and CommunicationAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
10
current version
GRADE rated
10
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 10%Moderate 9 · 90%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Natural frequencies versus probabilities
Population: health professionals and consumers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Understanding (measured as correct estimate or interpretation of a risk) Natural frequencies vs probabilities | no estimate extracted | 642 participants | Moderate Downgraded: indirectness |
Relative risk reduction (RRR) versus absolute risk reduction (ARR)
Population: health professionals and consumers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Understanding (measured as correct estimate or interpretation of a risk reduction) Relative risk reduction (RRR) vs absolute risk reduction (ARR) | no estimate extracted | 469 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency, indirectness |
Perception (measured as rating on a scale of perceived effectiveness) Relative risk reduction (RRR) vs absolute risk reduction (ARR) | no estimate extracted | 1116 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Persuasiveness (measured as a hypothetical decision or intention or willingness to adopt an intervention) Relative risk reduction (RRR) vs absolute risk reduction (ARR) | no estimate extracted | 11221 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency, indirectness |
Relative risk reduction (RRR) versus number needed to treat (NNT)
Population: health professionals and consumers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Understanding (measured as correct estimate or interpretation of a risk reduction) Relative risk reduction (RRR) vs number needed | no estimate extracted | 182 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency, indirectness |
Perception (measured as rating on a scale of perceived effectiveness) Relative risk reduction (RRR) vs number needed | no estimate extracted | 970 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency, indirectness |
Persuasiveness (measured as a hypothetical decision or intention or willingness to adopt an intervention) Relative risk reduction (RRR) vs number needed | no estimate extracted | 9582 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency, indirectness |
Absolute risk reduction (ARR) versus number needed to treat (NNT)
Population: health professionals and consumers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Understanding (measured as correct estimate or interpretation of a risk reduction) Absolute risk reduction (ARR) vs number needed | no estimate extracted | 182 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency, indirectness |
Perception (measured as rating on a scale of perceived effectiveness) Absolute risk reduction (ARR) vs number needed | no estimate extracted | 949 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency, indirectness |
Persuasiveness (measured as a hypothetical decision or intention or willingness to adopt an intervention) Absolute risk reduction (ARR) vs number needed | no estimate extracted | 9024 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency, indirectness |