Do people ever think about this?

This great post from the folks over at The Incidental Economist reviews a paper from the Journal of General Internal Medicine (PMID: 21792695), whose punchline is as follows:

For both physicians and patients who are trying to evaluate the mortality benefit of two drugs with absolute mortality rates of 6% (“old” drug) vs. 4% (“new” drug), the absolute mortality benefit is the most accurate measure, relative mortality reduction is the most persuasive (in favor of the “new”, lower-mortality drug) and absolute survival benefit blurred any difference between the two drugs.

What does that mean for clinical practice? If you’re a drug rep, always present data in terms of the largest relative difference in outcomes. If you’re a skeptic about new drugs,  present the smallest relative difference (since 94% survival vs. 96% survival was viewed as “no difference” but 4% mortality vs. 6% mortality is viewed as different).

But what if you’re just an average everyday doc? How do other students handle this in their clinical settings?

[This is not news: Kahaneman and Tversky z”l covered this 30-40 years ago, and much of current behavioral economics deals with variations on this theme.]

What I still don’t know, after much reading, is what the hell I should do about it? I do always strive to present absolute risk reduction numbers because personally I think those are the only easily understandable numbers. Your thoughts, oh mighty readership (I think there are 2-3 of you out there), would be most welcome …

This entry was posted in Life, Medical School and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s