TABLE 5.
The effect of the graphical elements for all participants in the analysis set on selecting Alpine or Lake Hospital compared to Meadow Hospital, which had the best tier rating (dominant metric) for 1 y Organ Survival
| Metric | Selected program |
Dominant metric |
Control | Graphical elements |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uncertainty statement | Impact statement | Data table | ||||
| Difference in relative risks | Alpine Hospital | Waitlist survival | – | 1.20 (0.77-1.88) | 1.92 (1.23-3.00) | 1.66 (1.15-2.39) |
| Lake Hospital | Transplant rate | – | 1.30 (0.93-1.82) | 1.93 (1.36-2.72) | 1.05 (0.79-1.39) | |
| Marginal relative risks | Alpine Hospital | Waitlist survival | 0.31 (0.19-0.45) | 0.40 (0.29-0.55) | 0.63 (0.46-0.86) | 0.55 (0.43-0.69) |
| Lake Hospital | Transplant rate | 0.59 (0.42-0.81) | 0.99 (0.78-1.25) | 1.50 (1.16-1.95) | 1.07 (0.87-1.30) | |
The difference in relative risks metric was the relative change in the probability selecting, eg, Alpine Hospital vs Meadow Hospital. In contrast, the marginal relative risk metric was the ratio of the probabilities for selecting, eg, Alpine Hospital compared to Meadow Hospital with the different graphical element. Parentheses contain the 95% confidence interval.