Communicating Time-to-Event Treatment Effects in Randomized Trials: A Randomized Experiment among General Practitioners

Background Time-to-event outcomes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often communicated without clearly conveying how treatment effects evolve over time. This can limit clinicians’ ability to interpret results and support patient decision making. Methods We conducted an online experiment with 250 German general practitioners in April 2024. Participants evaluated treatment effects presented in 4 common formats: hazard ratios, prolongation of life, restricted mean survival time (RMST), and absolute risk reduction. We assessed 1) understanding, defined as the ability to correctly compare effect sizes (small, medium, large), and 2) acceptability of each format. We also tested whether providing baseline risk information (control group outcomes) improved performance. Results Participants’ effectiveness ratings did not differ between small, medium, and large treatment effects in any format. RMST presentations were judged less effective but more acceptable than the other formats. Providing baseline risk information did not influence effectiveness ratings or acceptance. Limitations The use of a convenience sample may limit generalizability. Conclusions General practitioners struggled to interpret time-to-event treatment effects across all formats. Although RMST was preferred, no format supported accurate understanding of effect size. Implications Current approaches may not adequately support communication of time-to-event outcomes in clinical practice. More effective strategies are needed, likely combining absolute time-based measures with clear contextual information such as baseline risk. Registration: OSF 10.17605/OSF.IO/U69YM Highlights Time-to-event outcomes from randomized trials are difficult for clinicians to interpret. General practitioners were unable to distinguish between small, medium, and large treatment effects across formats. Restricted mean survival time was preferred but did not improve understanding of time-to-event effects. Current formats do not support communication of time-to-event outcomes in clinical decision making.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medical Decision Making
Published
2026-05-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x261446622
Primary Topic
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Communicating Time-to-Event Treatment Effects in Randomized Trials: A Randomized Experiment among General Practitioners

Odette Wegwarth, Wolfgang Gaissmaier, Helge Giese, Oliver Kuss
Medical Decision Making
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
article

Communicating Time-to-Event Treatment Effects in Randomized Trials: A Randomized Experiment among General Practitioners

Odette Wegwarth, Wolfgang Gaissmaier, Helge Giese, Oliver Kuss
article en

Abstract

Background Time-to-event outcomes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often communicated without clearly conveying how treatment effects evolve over time. This can limit clinicians’ ability to interpret results and support patient decision making. Methods We conducted an online experiment with 250 German general practitioners in April 2024. Participants evaluated treatment effects presented in 4 common formats: hazard ratios, prolongation of life, restricted mean survival time (RMST), and absolute risk reduction. We assessed 1) understanding, defined as the ability to correctly compare effect sizes (small, medium, large), and 2) acceptability of each format. We also tested whether providing baseline risk information (control group outcomes) improved performance. Results Participants’ effectiveness ratings did not differ between small, medium, and large treatment effects in any format. RMST presentations were judged less effective but more acceptable than the other formats. Providing baseline risk information did not influence effectiveness ratings or acceptance. Limitations The use of a convenience sample may limit generalizability. Conclusions General practitioners struggled to interpret time-to-event treatment effects across all formats. Although RMST was preferred, no format supported accurate understanding of effect size. Implications Current approaches may not adequately support communication of time-to-event outcomes in clinical practice. More effective strategies are needed, likely combining absolute time-based measures with clear contextual information such as baseline risk. Registration: OSF 10.17605/OSF.IO/U69YM Highlights Time-to-event outcomes from randomized trials are difficult for clinicians to interpret. General practitioners were unable to distinguish between small, medium, and large treatment effects across formats. Restricted mean survival time was preferred but did not improve understanding of time-to-event effects. Current formats do not support communication of time-to-event outcomes in clinical decision making.

Medical Decision Making
University of Konstanz (DE), Düsseldorf University Hospital (DE), Max Planck Institute for Human Development (DE), Deutsches Diabetes-Zentrum e.V. (DE), Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.