Pharmaceutical company advertisements (at least in the US) dutifully list a litany of side effects and other risks after presenting their benefits. Package inserts and many drug reference materials for health professionals do the same. The written lists are exhaustive and the print small, and in audiovisual ads the lists are read aloud faster than a seasoned auctioneer\u00a0can run through bids. The drug makers are doing what is required of them by regulatory agencies.\u00a0But\u00a0the information is not usable by patients\u00a0or even clinicians. Wouldn’t it be nice if patients and doctors could find the information they want and need\u00a0easily? For example,\u00a0how well does the drug work?\u00a0What are the main side effects and risks and how often do they occur?<\/p>\n
Woloshin\u00a0& Schwartz propose a simple solution.\u00a0Information boxes on medications\u00a0similar to those on bags of potato chips or cereal boxes. But these\u00a0boxes would clearly state\u00a0outcomes of randomized trials quantifying\u00a0results in medication versus placebo groups (e.g. absolute risks).\u00a0Patients (and doctors) would then have information they can use when making decisions. A simple idea, with evidence\u00a0in the literature already to support it. Their advice to the US Food and Drug Administration appears in today’s New York Times\u00a0http:\/\/nyti.ms\/mt2KHr<\/a>\u00a0Here at Evidence-Based Medicine, I would welcome papers on other innovations in communicating evidence to patients, and clinicians.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Pharmaceutical company advertisements (at least in the US) dutifully list a litany of side effects and other risks after presenting their benefits. Package inserts and many drug reference materials for health professionals do the same. The written lists are exhaustive and the print small, and in audiovisual ads the lists are read aloud faster than […]<\/p>\n