Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21336670›Full record

ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2011

Determining whether a patient is feeling better: pitfalls from the science of human perception.

Donald A Redelmeier, Victoria M Dickinson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Post Hoc Bias in Treatment Decisions.JAMA network open · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. A Dose of Reality About Dose-Response Relationships.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Economic Theory and Medical Assistance in Dying.Applied health economics and health policy · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Manual therapists - Have you lost that loving feeling?!The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Donald A RedelmeierDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. dar@ices.on.ca
Victoria M Dickinson
Sunnybrook Health Science Centre · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human perception is fallible and may lead patients to be inaccurate when judging whether their symptoms are improving with treatment. This article provides a narrative review of studies in psychology that describe misconceptions related to a patient's comprehension, recall, evaluation and expression. The specific misconceptions include the power of suggestion (placebo effects), desire for peace-of-mind (cognitive dissonance reduction), inconsistent standards (loss aversion), a flawed sense of time (duration neglect), limited perception (measurement error), declining sensitivity (Weber's law), an eagerness to please (social desirability bias), and subtle affirmation (personal control). An awareness of specific pitfalls might help clinicians avoid some mistakes when providing follow-up and interpreting changes in patient symptoms.

Indexed as

EmotionsMental RecallPerceptionPhysician-Patient RelationsHumansPatient Participation

Identifiers

PMID21336670
PMCPMC3138972
OpenAlexW2065856084

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.