Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11533430›Full record

ReviewQuality in health care : QHC2001

Measuring patients' preferences for treatment and perceptions of risk.

A Bowling, S Ebrahim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Quality in health care : QHC, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. What influences participants' treatment preference and can it influence outcome? Results from a primary care-based randomised trial for shoulder pain.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004
    Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Patients' experience with a community pharmacy fall prevention service.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Involving people with type 2 diabetes in facilitating participation in a cardiovascular screening programme.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

A BowlingDepartment of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Royal Free and University College Medical School, Royal Free Campus, London NW3 2PF, UK. A.Bowling@btinternet.com
S Ebrahim

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPatient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient RelationsRisk AssessmentAgedCommunicationHumansInformed ConsentPatient Participation

Identifiers

PMID11533430
PMCPMC1765740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.