当前位置: X-MOL 学术Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Scientific risk reporting in medical journals can bias expert judgment: Comparing surgeons' risk comprehension across reporting formats.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied ( IF 2.813 ) Pub Date : 2019-10-14 , DOI: 10.1037/xap0000242
Rocio Garcia-Retamero 1 , Dafina Petrova 2 , Edward T Cokely 3 , Alexander Joeris 4
Affiliation  

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) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译:

医学期刊中的科学风险报告可能会使专家的判断产生偏差:比较外科医生对各种报告格式的风险理解。

最近对整形外科文献的系统搜索表明,科学风险报告通常以特定方式偏离最佳做法(Petrova,Joeris,Sanchez,Salamanca-Fernandez和Garcia-Retamero,2018年)。这些偏差可能会在卫生专业人员的风险解释和风险沟通实践中造成危险的偏见。为了调查潜在的漏洞,我们进行了第一项比较研究,评估了风险评估期间常见报告格式对经验丰富的骨科医师的判断的影响(即,对患者遭受手术后副作用的风险进行医学研究)。结果表明,训练有素的外科医生经常被系统评价中确定的最常用格式误导和强烈偏颇。相反,遵循最佳实践标准的较不常见的格式(例如,透明的视觉辅助工具)通常通过帮助外科医生识别和比较基本信息,简化审议并减少主观混淆,来减少或消除判断偏差。讨论的重点是影响,包括其他分析,这些分析表明,即使在近年来,科学医学文献中误导性格式的使用仍很频繁,并且不受许多其他因素(例如期刊影响,研究质量)的影响。讨论了用于描述特定风险报告格式的可能影响的广义三类系统。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2020 APA,保留所有权利)。透明的视觉辅助工具)通常可以通过帮助外科医生识别和比较基本信息,简化审议并减少主观混淆来减少或消除判断偏见。讨论的重点是影响,包括其他分析,这些分析表明,即使在最近几年,科学医学文献中误导性格式的使用仍很频繁,并且不受许多其他因素(例如期刊影响,研究质量)的影响。讨论了用于描述特定风险报告格式的可能影响的广义三类系统。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2020 APA,保留所有权利)。透明的视觉辅助工具)通常可以通过帮助外科医生识别和比较基本信息,简化审议工作并减少主观混淆,来减少或消除判断上的偏见。讨论的重点是影响,包括其他分析,这些分析表明,即使在最近几年,科学医学文献中误导性格式的使用仍很频繁,并且不受许多其他因素(例如期刊影响,研究质量)的影响。讨论了用于描述特定风险报告格式的可能影响的广义三类系统。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2020 APA,保留所有权利)。讨论的重点是影响,包括其他分析,这些分析表明,即使在最近几年,科学医学文献中误导性格式的使用仍很频繁,并且不受许多其他因素(例如期刊影响,研究质量)的影响。讨论了用于描述特定风险报告格式的可能影响的广义三类系统。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2020 APA,保留所有权利)。讨论的重点是影响,包括其他分析,这些分析表明,即使在近年来,科学医学文献中误导性格式的使用仍很频繁,并且不受许多其他因素(例如期刊影响,研究质量)的影响。讨论了用于描述特定风险报告格式的可能影响的广义三类系统。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2020 APA,保留所有权利)。
更新日期:2019-11-01
down
wechat
bug