TY - JOUR T1 - Improving the reporting and interpretation of clinical trial outcomes JF - British Journal of General Practice JO - Br J Gen Pract SP - e729 LP - e731 DO - 10.3399/bjgp12X657008 VL - 62 IS - 603 AU - Robert Froud AU - Martin Underwood AU - Sandra Eldridge Y1 - 2012/10/01 UR - http://bjgp.org/content/62/603/e729.abstract N2 - Increasing demands on clinicians means that ‘time-poverty’ has become a very real issue.1 Despite this, the majority of practitioners still spend some time keeping abreast of the latest guidelines, reviews, and clinical trial reports, ensuring their patients get the most effective treatments. Unfortunately this is not being made easy. Not only is the volume of medical literature increasing, but the way in which reviews and clinical trials are being reported is becoming more complicated. Largely, this is a side effect of increasing complexities in trial design, and use of increasingly sophisticated methods of analysis. This may be set to become even more challenging with the advent of value-based pricing to inform NHS pharmaceutical purchasing decisions. Nevertheless, should advancements in the underlying scientific process mean that answers to important clinical questions become less accessible to those who need them the most? Not necessarily.Earlier this year we reported that a group of clinicians who see patients with back pain felt that clinical trials were difficult to interpret and not written with them in mind.2 Clinicians expressed dissatisfaction and an unfamiliarity with current reporting methods and suggested that a standardised set of reporting methods, including description of individual improvements would facilitate consumption, and aid the transition of the research into practice.One pitfall associated with the way outcomes are currently reported may be a lack of standardisation. It can be tempting for authors to report their results in ways that make an intervention appear as attractive as possible or lends as much weight as possible to their views; it is well-documented that the use of relative terms leads to increased perceptions of treatment effectiveness.3 For example, if the annual risk of venous thromboembolism in a non-pregnant woman, not using combined oral contraception, is 0.00005, but increases to 0.00015 after … ER -