Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006776.pub2Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 16 March 2011see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:

  1. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2012 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Elie A Akl

    Department of Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA

  • Andrew D Oxman

    Global Health Unit, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway

  • Jeph Herrin

    Department of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, USA

  • Gunn E Vist

    Prevention, Health Promotion and Organisation Unit, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway

  • Irene Terrenato

    Department of Epidemiology, National Cancer Institute Regina Elena, Rome, Italy

  • Francesca Sperati

    Department of Epidemiology, National Cancer Institute Regina Elena, Rome, Italy

  • Cecilia Costiniuk

    Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

  • Diana Blank

    Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

  • Holger Schünemann

    Correspondence to: Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

    [email protected]

Contributions of authors

EAA: study conception and design, screening, data extraction, data analysis and interpretation.

ADO: study conception and design, data analysis and interpretation.

JH: study conception and design, data extraction data analysis and interpretation.

IT: data extraction, data analysis

FS: data extraction, data analysis

GV: screening, data extraction, data analysis and interpretation.

CC: screening, data extraction.

DB: screening, data extraction.

HJS: study conception and design, screening, data extraction, data analysis and interpretation.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • State University of New York at Buffalo, NY, USA.

    Salary support, infrastructure

  • Italian National Cancer Institute, Regina Elena, Rome, Italy.

    Salary support

External sources

  • Norwegian Research Council, Norway.

    Salary support

  • HJS is funded by a European Commission: The human factor, mobility and Marie Curie Actions. Scientist Reintegration Grant: IGR 42194 ‐ GRADE., Not specified.

    Salary support

Declarations of interest

Some of the review authors were also authors of two included studies: Carling 2008 and Carling 2009.  A review author who was not a study author (IT), as well as EA, were involved in data abstraction and analysis for these studies. 

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dominique Broclain for his contributions to the protocol for this review; the editors and members of the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group, particularly Sophie Hill and Megan Prictor, for their careful review and editing; Ms. Ann Grifasi for her administrative assistance; and the authors of the primary studies who provided us with missing or supplementary information. They would also like to thank the State University of New York at Buffalo, the Italian National Cancer Institute Regina Elena, the National Institute of Public Health and the Norwegian Research Council for supporting their efforts on this review.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2011 Mar 16

Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions

Review

Elie A Akl, Andrew D Oxman, Jeph Herrin, Gunn E Vist, Irene Terrenato, Francesca Sperati, Cecilia Costiniuk, Diana Blank, Holger Schünemann

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006776.pub2

2007 Oct 17

Using different statistical formats for presenting health information

Protocol

Elie A Akl, Andrew D Oxman, Jeph Herrin, Gunn Elisabeth Vist, Cecilia Costiniuk, Diana Blank, Holger Schünemann

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006776

Differences between protocol and review

The protocol title was: 'Using different statistical formats for presenting health information'.

The protocol inclusion criteria for type of studies included RCTS, quasi‐RCTs and controlled before and after studies (CBAs). We omitted CBAs from the review because its categorization mainly reflects the outcome assessment method which could apply to different types of study designs.

The protocol inclusion criteria for type of outcome included any measure (including self‐reported) of the different outcomes. In the review, and for the outcome understanding, we considered only objective measurements after carefully considering the nature of that outcome.