How Well Do Commonly Used Data Presentation Formats Support Comparative Effectiveness Evaluations?
How Well Do Commonly Used Data Presentation Formats Support Comparative Effectiveness Evaluations?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0272989x12445284
复制
发表时间：
2012-11-01
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Veazie, Peter J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dolan, James G.;Qian, Feng;Veazie, Peter J.
背景好的决策取决于对决策方案的相对有效性的准确理解。传达支持这些比较所需数据的最佳方式尚不清楚。Objective.确定5种常用的数据表示格式如何传达比较有效性信息。方法.这项研究是一项使用析因设计的互联网调查。参与者包括在线调查小组的279名成员。研究参与者比较了与3种假设的筛查测试选项相关的结果，相对于5种可能的结果，概率范围为2/5000（0.04%）至500/1000（50%）。数据呈现格式包括表格、“放大”条形图、风险量表、频率图和图标数组。结果包括关于2个结果中更有可能的正确顺序判断的数量、成对结果的感知与实际相对可能性的比率、受试者间反应的一致性和感知清晰度。结果正确的顺序判断的平均数为12 15（80%），没有数据格式之间的差异。平均而言，感知和实际似然比之间的差异为3.3倍（95%置信区间= 3.0-3.6）。基于流程图、图标阵列和表格的比较判断均比基于风险量表和条形图的比较判断更准确和一致（P < 0.001）。最明显的格式是表格和流程图。主观计算能力低与不太准确和更多变量的数据解释和图标显示，条形图和流程图的清晰度较低相关。结论.所研究的数据呈现格式都不能可靠地为患者（尤其是主观计算能力较低的患者）提供对比较有效性信息的准确理解。
Background. Good decisions depend on an accurate understanding of the comparative effectiveness of decision alternatives. The best way to convey data needed to support these comparisons is unknown. Objective. To determine how well 5 commonly used data presentation formats convey comparative effectiveness information. Methods. The study was an Internet survey using a factorial design. Participants consisted of 279 members of an online survey panel. Study participants compared outcomes associated with 3 hypothetical screening test options relative to 5 possible outcomes with probabilities ranging from 2 per 5000 (0.04%) to 500 per 1000 (50%). Data presentation formats included a table, a "magnified" bar chart, a risk scale, a frequency diagram, and an icon array. Outcomes included the number of correct ordinal judgments regarding the more likely of 2 outcomes, the ratio of perceived versus actual relative likelihoods of the paired outcomes, the intersubject consistency of responses, and perceived clarity. Results. The mean number of correct ordinal judgments was 12 of 15 (80%), with no differences among data formats. On average, there was a 3.3-fold difference between perceived and actual likelihood ratios (95% confidence interval = 3.0-3.6). Comparative judgments based on flowcharts, icon arrays, and tables were all significantly more accurate and consistent than those based on risk scales and bar charts (P < 0.001). The most clearly perceived formats were the table and the flowchart. Low subjective numeracy was associated with less accurate and more variable data interpretations and lower perceived clarity for icon displays, bar charts, and flow diagrams. Conclusions. None of the data presentation formats studied can reliably provide patients, especially those with low subjective numeracy, with an accurate understanding of comparative effectiveness information.