关于牙医理解的随机试验:绝对数量与相对风险降低的治疗效益。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Brazilian oral research Pub Date : 2024-08-05 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0070
Paulo Nadanovsky, Branca Heloisa de Oliveira, Ronaldo Lira-Junior, Ana Paula Pires Dos Santos
{"title":"关于牙医理解的随机试验:绝对数量与相对风险降低的治疗效益。","authors":"Paulo Nadanovsky, Branca Heloisa de Oliveira, Ronaldo Lira-Junior, Ana Paula Pires Dos Santos","doi":"10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to assess whether dentists correctly understand the benefit of a dental treatment when it is presented using absolute numbers or relative risk reduction (RRR). This parallel-group randomized controlled trial recruited dentists from 3 postgraduate courses in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Participants received, in sequentially numbered sealed opaque envelopes, the description of a hypothetical scenario of the benefit (avoidance of multiple tooth loss) of nonsurgical periodontal treatment without or with antibiotics. Treatment benefit was presented in 2 different formats: absolute numbers or RRR. Dentists were given 10 minutes to read the treatment scenario and answer 5 questions. The final sample for analysis included 101 dentists. When asked to estimate the number of patients out of 100 who would avoid multiple tooth loss without antibiotics, 17 dentists (33%) in the absolute numbers group and 12 (25%) in the RRR group provided the correct response (p = 0.39). Regarding treatment with antibiotics, 26 dentists (50%) in the absolute numbers group and 14 (29%) in the RRR group provided the correct response (p = 0.04). Only 16 dentists (31%) in the absolute numbers group and 12 (25%) in the RRR group gave correct answers for both questions (p = 0.51). Most dentists did not correctly understand the benefit of the treatment, irrespective of the format it was presented. Slightly more dentists correctly understood the benefit of the treatment when it was presented as absolute numbers than as RRR.</p>","PeriodicalId":9240,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian oral research","volume":"38 ","pages":"e070"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11376625/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Randomized trial of dentists' understanding: treatment benefit in absolute numbers vs relative risk reduction.\",\"authors\":\"Paulo Nadanovsky, Branca Heloisa de Oliveira, Ronaldo Lira-Junior, Ana Paula Pires Dos Santos\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0070\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aimed to assess whether dentists correctly understand the benefit of a dental treatment when it is presented using absolute numbers or relative risk reduction (RRR). This parallel-group randomized controlled trial recruited dentists from 3 postgraduate courses in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Participants received, in sequentially numbered sealed opaque envelopes, the description of a hypothetical scenario of the benefit (avoidance of multiple tooth loss) of nonsurgical periodontal treatment without or with antibiotics. Treatment benefit was presented in 2 different formats: absolute numbers or RRR. Dentists were given 10 minutes to read the treatment scenario and answer 5 questions. The final sample for analysis included 101 dentists. When asked to estimate the number of patients out of 100 who would avoid multiple tooth loss without antibiotics, 17 dentists (33%) in the absolute numbers group and 12 (25%) in the RRR group provided the correct response (p = 0.39). Regarding treatment with antibiotics, 26 dentists (50%) in the absolute numbers group and 14 (29%) in the RRR group provided the correct response (p = 0.04). Only 16 dentists (31%) in the absolute numbers group and 12 (25%) in the RRR group gave correct answers for both questions (p = 0.51). Most dentists did not correctly understand the benefit of the treatment, irrespective of the format it was presented. Slightly more dentists correctly understood the benefit of the treatment when it was presented as absolute numbers than as RRR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brazilian oral research\",\"volume\":\"38 \",\"pages\":\"e070\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11376625/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brazilian oral research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0070\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian oral research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0070","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在评估牙医在使用绝对数字或相对风险降低率 (RRR) 表示牙科治疗的益处时,是否能正确理解其益处。这项平行分组随机对照试验招募了巴西里约热内卢 3 个研究生课程的牙医。参与者在按顺序编号的密封不透明信封中收到了关于不使用抗生素或使用抗生素进行非手术牙周治疗的益处(避免多颗牙齿脱落)的假设情景描述。治疗获益以两种不同的形式呈现:绝对数字或 RRR。牙医有 10 分钟的时间阅读治疗方案并回答 5 个问题。最终的分析样本包括 101 名牙医。当被要求估计 100 位牙医中有多少患者在不使用抗生素的情况下可避免多颗牙齿脱落时,绝对数字组中有 17 位牙医(33%)做出了正确的回答,而 RRR 组中有 12 位牙医(25%)做出了正确的回答(P = 0.39)。在使用抗生素治疗方面,绝对人数组中有 26 名牙医(50%)做出了正确回答,而相对比例研究组中有 14 名牙医(29%)做出了正确回答(p = 0.04)。对于这两个问题,绝对数字组中只有 16 名牙医(31%)给出了正确答案,而相对比例研究组中只有 12 名牙医(25%)给出了正确答案(p = 0.51)。大多数牙医都没有正确理解治疗的益处,无论以何种形式呈现。正确理解治疗效果的牙医人数在以绝对数字表示时略高于以RRR表示时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Randomized trial of dentists' understanding: treatment benefit in absolute numbers vs relative risk reduction.

This study aimed to assess whether dentists correctly understand the benefit of a dental treatment when it is presented using absolute numbers or relative risk reduction (RRR). This parallel-group randomized controlled trial recruited dentists from 3 postgraduate courses in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Participants received, in sequentially numbered sealed opaque envelopes, the description of a hypothetical scenario of the benefit (avoidance of multiple tooth loss) of nonsurgical periodontal treatment without or with antibiotics. Treatment benefit was presented in 2 different formats: absolute numbers or RRR. Dentists were given 10 minutes to read the treatment scenario and answer 5 questions. The final sample for analysis included 101 dentists. When asked to estimate the number of patients out of 100 who would avoid multiple tooth loss without antibiotics, 17 dentists (33%) in the absolute numbers group and 12 (25%) in the RRR group provided the correct response (p = 0.39). Regarding treatment with antibiotics, 26 dentists (50%) in the absolute numbers group and 14 (29%) in the RRR group provided the correct response (p = 0.04). Only 16 dentists (31%) in the absolute numbers group and 12 (25%) in the RRR group gave correct answers for both questions (p = 0.51). Most dentists did not correctly understand the benefit of the treatment, irrespective of the format it was presented. Slightly more dentists correctly understood the benefit of the treatment when it was presented as absolute numbers than as RRR.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
107
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信