ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2008
The ethics of information: absolute risk reduction and patient understanding of screening.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Supplemental Screening as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening in People With Dense Breasts: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2023Pooled it
- Doctors and patients' susceptibility to framing bias: a randomized trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2011Trial
- Article
- Layperson Views about the Design and Evaluation of Decision Aids: A Public Deliberation.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Article
- Better decision making in preventive health screening: Balancing benefits and harms.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2017Article
- Use of relative and absolute effect measures in reporting health inequalities: structured review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2012Review
- Risk communication in clinical trials: a cognitive experiment and a survey.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2010Article
- Disclosure and rationality: comparative risk information and decision-making about prevention.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Some experts have argued that patients should routinely be told the specific magnitude and absolute probability of potential risks and benefits of screening tests. This position is motivated by the idea that framing risk information in ways that are less precise violates the ethical principle of respect for autonomy and its application in informed consent or shared decision-making. In this Perspective, we consider a number of problems with this view that have not been adequately addressed. The most important challenges stem from the danger that patients will misunderstand the information or have irrational responses to it. Any initiative in this area should take such factors into account and should consider carefully how to apply the ethical principles of respect for autonomy and beneficence.
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.