From the Guidelines
There is evidence to support the importance of clarity in presenting benefits and harms in medical guidelines, as emphasized by the study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 2016 1. The question of whether there is data to support clarity is complex and multifaceted, and it requires a nuanced understanding of what is meant by "clarity" in the context of medical guidelines. However, based on the available evidence, it is clear that presenting benefits and harms in a clear and transparent manner is essential for informed decision-making in healthcare.
Key Findings
- The study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 2016 found that many medical guidelines do not present benefits and harms in a clear and consistent manner, which can lead to confusion and misinformed decision-making 1.
- The study also found that the use of absolute effect information, such as the number of patients who would benefit or be harmed by a particular intervention, can help to clarify the benefits and harms of different treatments 1.
- The PRISM statement, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2009, provides guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of healthcare interventions, including the importance of presenting results in a clear and transparent manner 1.
Implications for Practice
- Healthcare providers should prioritize clarity when presenting benefits and harms to patients, using absolute effect information and clear language to help patients understand the potential risks and benefits of different treatments.
- Guideline developers should strive to present benefits and harms in a consistent and transparent manner, using summary tables and other tools to help clinicians and patients understand the evidence.
- Patients should be empowered to ask questions and seek clarification when they are unsure about the benefits and harms of different treatments, and healthcare providers should be prepared to provide clear and accurate information to support informed decision-making.
From the FDA Drug Label
The FDA drug label does not answer the question.
From the Research
Data to Support Clarity
- There is evidence to suggest that decision aids can increase participants' knowledge and accuracy of risk perceptions, leading to more informed decisions 2.
- A study on parental programs for preventing underage drinking found that a program called "Strong and Clear" contributed to maintaining parents' restrictive attitude toward underage drinking and postponing alcohol debut among adolescents 3.
- However, a review of systematic reviews found that the conclusions drawn from the same review can vary between readers and authors, suggesting a degree of subjective interpretation involved in systematic reviews 4.
- In the context of shared decision-making, a qualitative systematic review found that internal and external influences, such as communication, trust, and mutual respect, can facilitate the shared decision-making process 5.
- Another study found that in the absence of clear guidelines and evidence, there is a lack of consensus on the treatment of the primary tumour in case of colon cancer with unresectable liver and/or lung metastases and no peritoneal carcinomatosis 6.
Key Findings
- Decision aids can improve knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and values-congruent choices 2.
- Parental programs can be effective in preventing underage drinking 3.
- Systematic reviews can be subject to subjective interpretation 4.
- Shared decision-making is influenced by internal and external factors, such as communication and trust 5.
- There is a need for more consistent evidence to guide decision-making in certain medical contexts 6.