Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18218084›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2008

The effect of offering different numbers of colorectal cancer screening test options in a decision aid: a pilot randomized trial.

Jennifer M Griffith, Carmen L Lewis, Alison R T Brenner, Michael P Pignone

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
14.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. A randomized trial comparing the effect of two phone-based interventions on colorectal cancer screening adherence.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2011
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. The impact of a novel computer-based decision aid on shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making
    Trial
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Risk assessment and clinical decision making for colorectal cancer screening.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jennifer M GriffithCenter for Decision Making Research, Cecil Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. jgriffith@unc.edu
Carmen L Lewis
Alison R T Brenner
Michael P Pignone
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Colon Cancer Screening Decisions in Late LifeK07CA104128 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI LEWIS, CARMEN LYNN · 2005 to 2009
$718k
NCI NIH HHS 5K07CA104128NCI NIH HHS K07 CA104128ODCDC CDC HHS P30 CD000138
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecision aids can improve decision making processes, but the amount and type of information that they should attempt to communicate is controversial. We sought to compare, in a pilot randomized trial, two colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision aids that differed in the number of screening options presented.

methodsAdults ages 48-75 not currently up to date with screening were recruited from the community and randomized to view one of two versions of our previously tested CRC screening decision aid. The first version included five screening options: fecal occult blood test (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy, a combination of FOBT and sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and barium enema. The second discussed only the two most frequently selected screening options, FOBT and colonoscopy. Main outcomes were differences in screening interest and test preferences between groups after decision aid viewing. Patient test preference was elicited first without any associated out-of-pocket costs (OPC), and then with the following costs: FOBT-$10, sigmoidoscopy-$50, barium enema-$50, and colonoscopy-$200.

results62 adults participated: 25 viewed the 5-option decision aid, and 37 viewed the 2-option version. Mean age was 54 (range 48-72), 58% were women, 71% were White, 24% African-American; 58% had completed at least a 4-year college degree. Comparing participants that viewed the 5-option version with participants who viewed the 2-option version, there were no differences in screening interest after viewing (1.8 vs. 1.9, t-test p = 0.76). Those viewing the 2-option version were somewhat more likely to choose colonoscopy than those viewing the 5-option version when no out of pocket costs were assumed (68% vs. 46%, p = 0.11), but not when such costs were imposed (41% vs. 42%, p = 1.00).

conclusionThe number of screening options available does not appear to have a large effect on interest in colorectal cancer screening. The effect of offering differing numbers of options may affect test choice when out-of-pocket costs are not considered.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAgedBariumChoice BehaviorColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEnemaFemaleFinancing, PersonalHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNorth CarolinaOccult BloodPatient ParticipationBarium

Identifiers

PMID18218084
PMCPMC2259331
OpenAlexW2147201704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.