Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Scientific risk reporting in medical journals can bias expert judgment: Comparing surgeons' risk comprehension across reporting formats.

Abstract

A recent systematic search of orthopedic surgery literature suggests that scientific risk reporting often deviates from best practices in specific ways (Petrova, Joeris, Sanchez, Salamanca-Fernandez, & Garcia-Retamero, 2018). These deviations could cause dangerous biases in health professionals' risk interpretations and risk communication practices. To investigate potential vulnerabilities, we conducted the first comparative study estimating the effects of common reporting formats on the judgment of experienced orthopedic surgeons during risk evaluations (i.e., interpreting medical research on the risk of suffering postsurgical side effects in patients). Results indicate that highly trained surgeons were often misled and strongly biased by the most commonly used formats identified in the systematic review. In contrast, less common formats following best practice standards (e.g., transparent visual aids) typically reduced or eliminated judgment biases by helping surgeons identify and compare essential information, streamlining deliberation and reducing subjective confusion. Discussion focuses on implications including additional analyses showing that the use of misleading formats in scientific medical literature is frequent, even in recent years, and it is independent of many other factors (e.g., journal impact, study quality). A broad three-category system for characterizing the probable impact of specific risk reporting formats is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Authors+Show Affiliations

Facultad de Psicología.Cancer Registry of Granada.National Institute for Risk and Resilience and Department of Psychology.AO Clinical Investigation and Documentation.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

31613119

Citation

Garcia-Retamero, Rocio, et al. "Scientific Risk Reporting in Medical Journals Can Bias Expert Judgment: Comparing Surgeons' Risk Comprehension Across Reporting Formats." Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 2019.
Garcia-Retamero R, Petrova D, Cokely ET, et al. Scientific risk reporting in medical journals can bias expert judgment: Comparing surgeons' risk comprehension across reporting formats. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2019.
Garcia-Retamero, R., Petrova, D., Cokely, E. T., & Joeris, A. (2019). Scientific risk reporting in medical journals can bias expert judgment: Comparing surgeons' risk comprehension across reporting formats. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, doi:10.1037/xap0000242.
Garcia-Retamero R, et al. Scientific Risk Reporting in Medical Journals Can Bias Expert Judgment: Comparing Surgeons' Risk Comprehension Across Reporting Formats. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2019 Oct 14; PubMed PMID: 31613119.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Scientific risk reporting in medical journals can bias expert judgment: Comparing surgeons' risk comprehension across reporting formats. AU - Garcia-Retamero,Rocio, AU - Petrova,Dafina, AU - Cokely,Edward T, AU - Joeris,Alexander, Y1 - 2019/10/14/ PY - 2019/10/16/entrez JF - Journal of experimental psychology. Applied JO - J Exp Psychol Appl N2 - A recent systematic search of orthopedic surgery literature suggests that scientific risk reporting often deviates from best practices in specific ways (Petrova, Joeris, Sanchez, Salamanca-Fernandez, & Garcia-Retamero, 2018). These deviations could cause dangerous biases in health professionals' risk interpretations and risk communication practices. To investigate potential vulnerabilities, we conducted the first comparative study estimating the effects of common reporting formats on the judgment of experienced orthopedic surgeons during risk evaluations (i.e., interpreting medical research on the risk of suffering postsurgical side effects in patients). Results indicate that highly trained surgeons were often misled and strongly biased by the most commonly used formats identified in the systematic review. In contrast, less common formats following best practice standards (e.g., transparent visual aids) typically reduced or eliminated judgment biases by helping surgeons identify and compare essential information, streamlining deliberation and reducing subjective confusion. Discussion focuses on implications including additional analyses showing that the use of misleading formats in scientific medical literature is frequent, even in recent years, and it is independent of many other factors (e.g., journal impact, study quality). A broad three-category system for characterizing the probable impact of specific risk reporting formats is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved). SN - 1939-2192 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/31613119/Scientific_risk_reporting_in_medical_journals_can_bias_expert_judgment:_Comparing_surgeons'_risk_comprehension_across_reporting_formats DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -