ReviewBMC medical informatics and decision making2013
Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers.
Review in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 239 papers, 13 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
239 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Personalizing cancer risk: a systematic review of risk communication strategies.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Verbal Probability Terms for Communicating Clinical Risk - a Systematic Review.The Ulster medical journal · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of different visual presentations on the comprehension of prognostic information: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Pooled it
- Translating Evidence to Advanced Parkinson's Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2021Pooled it
- Kidney disease pathways, options and decisions: an environmental scan of international patient decision aids.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Quality of Stroke Patient Information Applied in Randomized Controlled Trials-Literature Review.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Pooled it
- Assessing the quality and communicative aspects of patient decision aids for early-stage breast cancer treatment: a systematic review.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2019Pooled it
- Availability and readability of patient education materials for deprescribing: An environmental scan.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Measuring trust in vaccination: A systematic review.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2018Pooled it
- Clinical Validity, Understandability, and Actionability of Online Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculators: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Pooled it
- Presentation of Benefits and Harms in US Cancer Screening and Prevention Guidelines: Systematic Review.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2016Pooled it
- Trial
- Efficacy of the Outsmart HPV Intervention: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase HPV Vaccination among Young Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Communicating Uncertainty in Written Consumer Health Information to the Public: Parallel-Group, Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Trial
- Risk communication in a patient decision aid for radiotherapy in breast cancer: How to deal with uncertainty?Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Trial
- When Does the Incremental Risk Format Aid Informed Medical Decisions? The Role of Learning, Feedback, and Number of Treatment Options.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2020Trial
179 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMaking evidence-based decisions often requires comparison of two or more options. Research-based evidence may exist which quantifies how likely the outcomes are for each option. Understanding these numeric estimates improves patients' risk perception and leads to better informed decision making. This paper summarises current "best practices" in communication of evidence-based numeric outcomes for developers of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other health communication tools.
methodAn expert consensus group of fourteen researchers from North America, Europe, and Australasia identified eleven main issues in risk communication. Two experts for each issue wrote a "state of the art" summary of best evidence, drawing on the PtDA, health, psychological, and broader scientific literature. In addition, commonly used terms were defined and a set of guiding principles and key messages derived from the results.
resultsThe eleven key components of risk communication were: 1) Presenting the chance an event will occur; 2) Presenting changes in numeric outcomes; 3) Outcome estimates for test and screening decisions; 4) Numeric estimates in context and with evaluative labels; 5) Conveying uncertainty; 6) Visual formats; 7) Tailoring estimates; 8) Formats for understanding outcomes over time; 9) Narrative methods for conveying the chance of an event; 10) Important skills for understanding numerical estimates; and 11) Interactive web-based formats. Guiding principles from the evidence summaries advise that risk communication formats should reflect the task required of the user, should always define a relevant reference class (i.e., denominator) over time, should aim to use a consistent format throughout documents, should avoid "1 in x" formats and variable denominators, consider the magnitude of numbers used and the possibility of format bias, and should take into account the numeracy and graph literacy of the audience.
conclusionA substantial and rapidly expanding evidence base exists for risk communication. Developers of tools to facilitate evidence-based decision making should apply these principles to improve the quality of risk communication in practice.
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.