This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on Web of Science (3)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Janet E. Hux, MSc, MD, SM, FRCPC; C. David Naylor, MD, DPhil, FRCPC

Arch Intern Med. 1995;155(21):2277-2280.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

OVER the last 25 years the randomized clinical trial and the science of clinical epidemiology have begun to reshape the way medicine is practiced and taught, replacing anecdote and tradition with concrete quantitative data. During the same period, cognitive psychologists have demonstrated that the interpretation of quantitative data may be substantially influenced by the manner in which the data are presented.^1,2 Early work by McNeil et al³ suggested that physicians' interpretations of treatment outcomes are not immune to such cognitive biases. That the results of properly conducted trials of medical interventions should have an impact on the application of those interventions in clinical practice is indeed encouraging. But, that the magnitude and even the direction of that impact should depend on the numeric presentation of the results is cause for concern. A number of recent studies^4-12 have convincingly demonstrated that both physicians and patients are susceptible to . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences G-106, 2075 Bayview Ave North York, Ontario Canada M4N 3M5

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?