Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2006
Health professionals' and service users' interpretation of screening test results: experimental study.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- How well do health professionals interpret diagnostic information? A systematic review.BMJ open · 2015Pooled it
- Guideline
- Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- Risk expression using likelihood ratios and natural frequencies in Bayesian inference tasks-a preregistered randomized-controlled crossover trial.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Natural frequency tree- versus conditional probability formula-based training for medical students' estimation of screening test predictive values: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2024Trial
- Educating physicians on strong opioids by descriptive versus simulated-experience formats: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2022Trial
- Trial
- A comprehension scale for central-line associated bloodstream infection: Results of a preliminary survey and factor analysis.PloS one · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Deferring to Expertise whilst Maintaining Autonomy.Episteme (Edinburgh) · 2025Article
- Assessing statistical literacy in medical students and doctors: a single-centre, cross-sectional survey in South Korea.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Laypersons' understanding of statistical concepts commonly used in prescription drug promotion: A review of the research literature.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP · 2024Article
- Seizure forecasting: Where do we stand?Epilepsia · 2023Article
- Illusion of knowledge in statistics among clinicians: evaluating the alignment between objective accuracy and subjective confidence, an online survey.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023Article
- Talking about Risk, UncertaintieS of Testing IN Genetics (TRUSTING): development and evaluation of an educational programme for healthcare professionals about BRCA1 & BRCA2 testing.British journal of cancer · 2022Article
- The Effect of an Additional Structured Methods Presentation on Decision-Makers' Reading Time and Opinions on the Helpfulness of the Methods in a Quantitative Report: Nonrandomized Trial.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Attributes Characterizing Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests That Influence Preferences of Individuals Eligible for Screening in Germany: A Qualitative Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- Use of a quantitative data report in a hypothetical decision scenario for health policymaking: a computer-assisted laboratory study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Public's understanding of swab test results for SARS-CoV-2: an online behavioural experiment during the April 2020 lockdown.BMJ open · 2021Article
- The Interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Tests.Med (New York, N.Y.) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the accuracy of interpretation of probabilistic screening information by different stakeholder groups and whether presentation as frequencies improves accuracy.
designBetween participants experimental design; participants responded to screening information embedded in a scenario.
settingRegional maternity service and national conferences and training days.
participants43 pregnant women attending their first antenatal appointment in a regional maternity service; 40 companions accompanying the women to their appointments; 42 midwives; 41 obstetricians. Participation rates were 56%, 48%, 89%, and 71% respectively. MEASURES: Participants estimated the probability that a positive screening test result meant that a baby actually had Down's syndrome on the basis of all the relevant information, which was presented in a scenario. They were randomly assigned to scenarios that presented the information in percentage (n = 86) or frequency (n = 83) format. They also gave basic demographic information and rated their confidence in their estimate.
resultsMost responses (86%) were incorrect. Obstetricians gave significantly more correct answers (although still only 34% [corrected]) than either midwives (0%) or pregnant women (9%). Overall, the proportion of correct answers was higher for presentation as frequencies (24%) than for presentation as percentages (6%), but further analysis showed that this difference occurred only in responses from obstetricians. Many health professionals were confident in their incorrect responses.
conclusionsMost stakeholders in pregnancy screening draw incorrect inferences from probabilistic information, and health professionals need to be aware of the difficulties that both they and their patients have with such information. Moreover, they should be aware that different people make different mistakes and that ways of conveying information that help some people will not help others.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.