Presentation of Diagnostic Information to Doctors May Change Their Interpretation and Clinical Management: A Web-Based Randomised Controlled Trial

Background There is little evidence on how best to present diagnostic information to doctors and whether this makes any difference to clinical management. We undertook a randomised controlled trial to see if different data presentations altered clinicians’ decision to further investigate or treat a patient with a fictitious disorder (“Green syndrome”) and their ability to determine post-test probability. Methods We recruited doctors registered with the United Kingdom’s largest online network for medical doctors between 10 July and 6” November 2012. Participants were randomised to one of four arms: (a) text summary of sensitivity and specificity, (b) Fagan’s nomogram, (c) probability-modifying plot (PMP), (d) natural frequency tree (NFT). The main outcome measure was the decision whether to treat, not treat or undertake a brain biopsy on the hypothetical patient and the correct post-test probability. Secondary outcome measures included knowledge of diagnostic tests. Results 917 participants attempted the survey and complete data were available from 874 (95.3%). Doctors randomized to the PMP and NFT arms were more likely to treat the patient than those randomized to the text-only arm. (ORs 1.49, 95% CI 1.02, 2.16) and 1.43, 95% CI 0.98, 2.08 respectively). More patients randomized to the PMP (87/218–39.9%) and NFT (73/207–35.3%) arms than the nomogram (50/194–25.8%) or text only (30/255–11.8%) arms reported the correct post-test probability (p <0.001). Younger age, postgraduate training and higher self-rated confidence all predicted better knowledge performance. Doctors with better knowledge were more likely to view an optional learning tutorial (OR per correct answer 1.18, 95% CI 1.06, 1.31). Conclusions Presenting diagnostic data using a probability-modifying plot or natural frequency tree influences the threshold for treatment and improves interpretation of tests results compared to text summary of sensitivity and specificity or Fagan’s nomogram.

[1]  E. Balas,et al.  Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[2]  Lucas M Bachmann,et al.  Communicating accuracy of tests to general practitioners: a controlled study , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  S. Bloxham.  A memorable locum job , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  T. Perneger,et al.  Does Prevalence Matter to Physicians in Estimating Post-test Probability of Disease? A Randomized Trial , 2011, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[5]  Milo Puhan,et al.  A Randomized Trial of Ways To Describe Test Accuracy: The Effect on Physicians' Post-Test Probability Estimates , 2005, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[6]  Jonathan AC Sterne,et al.  BMC Medical Research Methodology BioMed Central Correspondence Graphical presentation of diagnostic information , 2008 .

[7]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  What are natural frequencies? , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  J. Sterne,et al.  Temporal growth and geographic variation in the use of laboratory tests by NHS general practices: using routine data to identify research priorities. , 2013, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[9]  A R Feinstein,et al.  Academic calculations versus clinical judgments: practicing physicians' use of quantitative measures of test accuracy. , 1998, The American journal of medicine.

[10]  G Gigerenzer,et al.  [How can one improve the understanding and communication of the importance of medical test results?]. , 2000, Zeitschrift fur arztliche Fortbildung und Qualitatssicherung.

[11]  Peter Salmon,et al.  Health professionals' and service users' interpretation of screening test results: experimental study , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  E. Akl,et al.  Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. , 2011, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[13]  W. Casscells,et al.  Interpretation by physicians of clinical laboratory results. , 1978, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  J. Sterne,et al.  A review identifies and classifies reasons for ordering diagnostic tests. , 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  T. Koepsell,et al.  The influence of types of decision support on physicians’ decision making , 2009, Archives of Disease in Childhood.

[16]  G. Lyman,et al.  The effect of changing disease risk on clinical reasoning , 1994, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[17]  Ulrich Hoffrage,et al.  Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients. , 2013, Social science & medicine.

[18]  Ulrich Hoffrage,et al.  Teaching Bayesian reasoning: an evaluation of a classroom tutorial for medical students , 2002, Medical teacher.

[19]  Jane M. Young,et al.  General practitioners' self ratings of skills in evidence based medicine: validation study , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[20]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[21]  K A Schulman,et al.  The effect of race and sex on physicians' recommendations for cardiac catheterization. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.