BMJ  2003;327:1403-1404 (13 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7428.1403-c

Letter

Communicating risk

Journalists take note

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—Gigerenzer and Edwards provide us with a succinct summary of everything that is wrong with communicating risk both within the medical profession and to the public at large.¹ What is more, they suggest comparatively easy ways of improving the current sad state of confusion and misunderstanding, by using natural frequencies or absolute risks whenever possible, rather than relative risks alone.

My concern is that the public invariably gets its medical information from the media first, and that journalists who scan the medical press often clearly do not understand the statistics that they are quoting. Particularly with the results of drug trials, the relative risk reduction is quoted (as it is the figure which looks the most impressive) without any reference to natural frequency or absolute risk. Relative risk has very little meaning unless it is framed by the natural frequency of the event considered.

This problem was apparent . . . [Full text of this article]

Hastings House Medical Centre, Wellesbourne, Warwick CV35 9NF drivers@netcomuk.co.uk

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

Relevant Article

Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight

Gerd Gigerenzer and Adrian Edwards
BMJ 2003 327: 741-744. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

A view from both sides of the journalists' task

Samantha A Harding
bmj.com, 16 Dec 2003 [Full text]

PRESS,MEDIA AND MEDICAL RESPONSABILITIES

CELIO LEVYMAN,MD,MSc
bmj.com, 18 Dec 2003 [Full text]

Re: A view from both sides of the journalists' task

Tony A Plant
bmj.com, 4 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more >>