Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25156687›Full record

Trial reportJAMA internal medicine2014

The effect of information presentation on beliefs about the benefits of elective percutaneous coronary intervention.

Michael B Rothberg, Laura Scherer, Mohammad Amin Kashef, Megan Coylewright, Henry H Ting, Bo Hu, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Perceived Barriers to Implementing Individual Choosing WiselyJournal of general internal medicine · 2017
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Michael B RothbergDepartment of Internal Medicine, Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Laura SchererDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia.
Mohammad Amin KashefDepartment of Internal Medicine, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts.
Megan CoylewrightKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Henry H TingKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Bo HuQuantitative Health Sciences Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Brian J Zikmund-FisherDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor7Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Cleveland Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Florida · USBaystate Medical Center · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USUniversity of Missouri · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Decision MakingPercutaneous Coronary InterventionAgedAged, 80 and overAngina PectorisAngioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryComprehensionElective Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionOdds RatioPatient Education as TopicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID25156687
OpenAlexW2089126552

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.