As busy clinicians struggling to select clinically relevant research
among the multitude of papers on offer, we do appreciate the potential of
the PICO initiative. We believe -however- that if it fails to acknowledge
the difficulty that most individuals experience with data interpretation
it may fall short of its laudable aim. We refer in particular to the
editorial comment that the shortened articles will be accompanied by a
table showing ratio measures [relative risk, odds ratio]. This is
perplexing because published evidence consistently shows that even
experienced professionals may fail to interpret correctly data reported as
ratio measures [1,2], which may in turn affect decision-making [3] and
communication with patients [4]. Better ways of conveing information are
being developed [5,6] and the BMJ should not miss the opportunity to apply
them if the PICO articles are to fulfill their potential.
1) Bobbio M, Demichelis MD, Giustetto MD - Completeness of reporting
trial results : effects on physicians willingness to prescribe - Lancet
1994 vol. 343 : 1209
2) Bramwell R, West H, Salmon P - BMJ 2006 vol. 331 : 284
4) Steiner JF - The language of population and the language of
individuals - Ann Intern Med 1999 vol.130 : 618
5) Gigerenzer G, Edwards A - simple tools for understanding risk :
from innumeracy to insight - BMJ 2003 vol. 327 : 741
6) Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S
- Helping doctors and patients to make sense of ehalth statistics - Psych
Science in the Public Interest 2008 vol.8 : 53
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests:
No competing interests
25 August 2009
Piero Baglioni
Consultant Physician
Oneybuchi Okosieme, Consultant Physician, Prince Charles Hospital, Merthyr Tydfil CF47 9DT
Rapid Response:
Understanding what you read.
As busy clinicians struggling to select clinically relevant research
among the multitude of papers on offer, we do appreciate the potential of
the PICO initiative. We believe -however- that if it fails to acknowledge
the difficulty that most individuals experience with data interpretation
it may fall short of its laudable aim. We refer in particular to the
editorial comment that the shortened articles will be accompanied by a
table showing ratio measures [relative risk, odds ratio]. This is
perplexing because published evidence consistently shows that even
experienced professionals may fail to interpret correctly data reported as
ratio measures [1,2], which may in turn affect decision-making [3] and
communication with patients [4]. Better ways of conveing information are
being developed [5,6] and the BMJ should not miss the opportunity to apply
them if the PICO articles are to fulfill their potential.
1) Bobbio M, Demichelis MD, Giustetto MD - Completeness of reporting
trial results : effects on physicians willingness to prescribe - Lancet
1994 vol. 343 : 1209
2) Bramwell R, West H, Salmon P - BMJ 2006 vol. 331 : 284
3) Fahey T, Griffiths S, Peters TJ - BMJ 1995 vol. 311 : 1056
4) Steiner JF - The language of population and the language of
individuals - Ann Intern Med 1999 vol.130 : 618
5) Gigerenzer G, Edwards A - simple tools for understanding risk :
from innumeracy to insight - BMJ 2003 vol. 327 : 741
6) Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S
- Helping doctors and patients to make sense of ehalth statistics - Psych
Science in the Public Interest 2008 vol.8 : 53
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests