Related Experiment Videos
Understanding and Usefulness of Effect Size and Certainty of Evidence: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Evidence-Based
Nirjhar R Ghosh1,2, Elizabeth P Neale3, Rosa K Hand4
1Department of Nutrition, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.
Introduction:
Understanding of absolute and relative effect estimates, and determining effect size and certainty of evidence corresponding to effect estimates, represent fundamental evidence-based practice competencies that promote informed clinical decision-making. While research has been conducted in the medical profession, based on our literature review there is no published research on these competencies in the nutrition and dietetics profession.
Methods:
Among registered dietitians, our main objectives were to assess (1) their understanding and perceived usefulness of three absolute and two relative effect estimate approaches to determine effect size, (2) their perceived usefulness of certainty of evidence, and (3) factors influencing their understanding and perceived usefulness. We conducted a web-based, cross-sectional survey by recruiting dietitians from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (United States). Participants received effect estimates based on hypothetical dietary interventions vs. usual diet for reducing myocardial infarction risk.
Results:
Of the 11,050 dietitians who received the survey link, 210 participated, and only completers (n = 114) were included in our analysis. Participants demonstrated a similar understanding of the relative (27.6%) and absolute (27.5%) effect estimates, with Risk Difference being the best understood approach and Number Needed to Treat being the least (30.7% vs. 24.6% correct responses). While perceived usefulness scores were similar between five approaches, they were highest when data was presented as Relative Risk [mean (SD): 4.82 (1.50)]. Dietitians rated the usefulness of certainty of evidence favorably [mean (SD): 5.07 (1.83), on a 7-point scale], and no factors were associated with correct understanding.
Conclusion:
Dietitians may have limited understanding of effect size thresholds presented in our survey, a finding mostly consistent with surveys of other health professionals. To optimize informed decision-making between dietitians and clients, dietetic programs and continuing education platforms should consider additional training on effect estimate approaches (relative and absolute), and determining effect sizes and certainty of evidence for effect estimates.
Related Concept Videos
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Introduction to Epidemiology
Odds Ratio
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial evaluating a...
Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies.
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...