OBJECTIVES:

The aim of this study is to find out whether and how varying the presentation of statistical key data regarding the efficacy of drugs - tabular vs. text and percentage vs. frequency - has an impact on the perceived benefit.

METHODS:

A questionnaire study asking subjects to assess a new drug relative to an appropriate comparator was conducted. The study used 8 different treatments differing in the illness addressed [Plaque Psoriasis; Prostate Cancer] and the presentation of the data in the way mentioned above [tabular vs. text and percentage vs. frequency].

RESULTS:

1200 student subjects participated in the questionnaire. The data show a significant improvement in the rating of the new drug once information is presented in tabular form. By contrast, no distinction can be established between percentage and frequency. However, once we focus on the presentation as tabular, the evaluation of the new drug improves further if the information is presented using percentages.

CONCLUSIONS:

The study shows that presenting [favourable] data for a new drug in a table rather than in text, leads to a significantly better rating. Obviously, the way the data are presented entails no fundamental information about the value of the new drug. Thus, the observed differences not only highlight an apparent framing effect. They also emphasise an important potential bias in evaluations in key statistical information are not presented in a coherent way once official drug assessments are made. Further analyses about relevance are recommended.