ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2009
Analysis of clinical uncertainties by health professionals and patients: an example from mental health.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Great expectations for participatory research: what have we achieved in the last ten years?World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe first step in practising Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) has been described as translating clinical uncertainty into a structured and focused clinical question that can be used to search the literature to ascertain or refute that uncertainty. In this study we focus on questions about treatments for schizophrenia posed by mental health professionals and patients to gain a deeper understanding about types of questions asked naturally, and whether they can be reformulated into structured and focused clinical questions.
methodsFrom a survey of uncertainties about the treatment of schizophrenia we describe, categorise and analyse the type of questions asked by mental health professionals and patients about treatment uncertainties for schizophrenia. We explore the value of mapping from an unstructured to a structured framework, test inter-rater reliability for this task, develop a linguistic taxonomy, and cross tabulate that taxonomy with elements of a well structured clinical question.
resultsFew of the 78 Patients and 161 clinicians spontaneously asked well structured queries about treatment uncertainties for schizophrenia. Uncertainties were most commonly about drug treatments (45.3% of clinicians and 41% of patients), psychological therapies (19.9% of clinicians and 9% of patients) or were unclassifiable.(11.8% of clinicians and 16.7% of patients). Few naturally asked questions could be classified using the well structured and focused clinical question format (i.e. PICO format). A simple linguistic taxonomy better described the types of questions people naturally ask.
conclusionPeople do not spontaneously ask well structured clinical questions. Other taxonomies may better capture the nature of questions. However, access to EBM resources is greatly facilitated by framing enquiries in the language of EBM, such as posing queries in PICO format. People do not naturally do this. It may be preferable to identify a way of searching the literature that more closely matches the way people naturally ask questions if access to information about treatments are to be made more broadly available.
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.