Table 3.
Effect of high ambiguity aversion according to different definitions of therapeutic inertia (TI).
| Outcome | Prevalence (%) of TI in the cohort | Adjusted model for ambiguity aversiona |
Adjusted model for ambiguity aversionb |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95%CI) | c-Statistics | OR (95%CI) | c-Statistics | ||
| TI (criterion) | |||||
| Clinico-radiological | 66 (68.8) | 7.39 (1.40–38.9) | 0.804 | 8.01 (1.01–73.3) | 0.828 |
| European Medicines Agency | 28 (29.2) | 8.02 (1.37–37.1) | 0.777 | 7.17 (1.36–37.6) | 0.796 |
| Modified Rio or progression (Expanded Disability Status Scale >1) | 65 (67.7) | 4.41 (1.04–18.7) | 0.791 | 4.01 (0.83–19.3) | 0.811 |
aModels derived from stepwise logistic regression with backward selection with p > 0.2 level for removal.
bModels derived from logistic regression including all variables of interest (age, sex, number of multiple sclerosis patients seen per week, practice setting, academic profile, risk aversion, ambiguity aversion, tolerance to uncertainty, herding, and overconfidence).