Trial reportJAMA internal medicine2014
The effect of information presentation on beliefs about the benefits of elective percutaneous coronary intervention.
Trial report in JAMA internal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Attitudes and Experiences With Informed Consent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Korea: A Mixed-Methods Study.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Strategies to Reduce Low-Value Cardiovascular Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2022Review
- Controversies in revascularisation for stable coronary artery disease.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2021Review
- Treatment selection and medication adherence for stable angina: The role of area-based health literacy.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2020Article
- Development of a Framework Based on Reflective MCDA to Support Patient-Clinician Shared Decision-Making: The Case of the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the United States.Advances in therapy · 2018Article
- An epidemic of overdiagnosis and overtreatment: getting to the heart of the problem.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2017Article
- Article
- Perceived Barriers to Implementing Individual Choosing WiselyJournal of general internal medicine · 2017Article
- Perceiving one's heart condition to be cured following hospitalization for acute coronary syndromes: Implications for patient-provider communication.Patient education and counseling · 2016Article
- Quantitative Coronary Physiology for Clinical Management: the Imaging Standard.Current cardiology reports · 2016Review
- Choosing Wisely in the UK: the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges' initiative to reduce the harms of too much medicine.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceFor stable angina, the benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are limited to symptom relief, but patients often believe that PCI prevents myocardial infarction (MI). Whether presenting accurate information about the benefits of PCI would dispel these beliefs remains unknown. We hypothesized that explanatory information would be more effective for influencing volunteers' beliefs.
objectiveTo assess the effect of explicit and explanatory information on participants' beliefs about PCI and their willingness to choose it. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsWe conducted a randomized trial in 2012 among adults older than 50 years living in the general community. We recruited participants using the Internet.
interventionsParticipants read 1 of 3 scenarios in which they experienced class I angina and were referred to a cardiologist. The cardiologist provided no information about the effects of PCI on MI risk, a specific statement that PCI does not reduce MI risk, or an explanation of why PCI does not reduce MI risk. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Participants' beliefs about the benefit of PCI and choice of PCI and medication.
resultsA total of 1257 participants (90.0%) completed the survey; 54.5% chose PCI. Compared with those receiving explicit and explanatory information, those receiving no information were most likely to believe that PCI prevents MI (71.0% vs 38.7% vs 30.6%, respectively; P < .001), most likely to choose PCI (69.4% vs 48.7% vs 45.7%, respectively; P < .001), and least likely to agree to medication therapy (83.1% vs 87.4% vs 92.3%, respectively; P < .001). Across the entire sample, the decision to have PCI was strongly correlated with the belief that PCI would prevent MI (odds ratio, 5.82 [95% CI, 4.13-8.26]) and that the participant would feel less worried (odds ratio, 5.36 [95% CI, 3.87-7.45]), but was not associated with how much participants were limited by symptoms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the setting of mild, stable angina, most people assume PCI prevents MI and are likely to choose it. Explicit information can partially overcome that bias and influence decision making. Explanatory information was the most effective intervention in overcoming this bias.
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.