ArticlePloS one2014
Communicating the benefits and harms of colorectal cancer screening needed for an informed choice: a systematic evaluation of leaflets and booklets.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Assessment of the effects of decision aids about breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening.Cancers · 2023Review
- To Consent or Not to Consent to Screening, That Is the Question.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Non-maleficence and the ethics of consent to cancer screening.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- Systematic evaluation of written health information on PSA based screening in Germany.PloS one · 2019Article
- Patient-rated importance of key information on screening colonoscopy in Germany: a survey of statutory health insurance members.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme in Spain: Results of Key Performance Indicators After Five Rounds (2000-2012).Scientific reports · 2016Article
- People's willingness to accept overdetection in cancer screening: population survey.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEvidence-based health information (EBHI) can support informed choice regarding whether or not to attend colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The present study aimed to assess if German leaflets and booklets appropriately inform consumers on the benefits and harms of CRC screening.
methodsA systematic search for print media on CRC screening was performed via email enquiry and internet search. The identified documents were assessed for the presence and correctness of information on benefits and harms by two reviewers independently using a comprehensive list of criteria.
resultsMany of the 28 leaflets and 13 booklets identified presented unbalanced information on the benefits and harms of CRC screening: one-third did not provide any information on harms. Numeracy information was often lacking. Ten cross-language examples of common misinterpretations or basically false and misleading information were identified. DISCUSSION: Most of the CRC screening leaflets and booklets in Germany do not meet current EBHI standards. After the study, the publishers of the information materials were provided feedback, including a discussion of our findings. The results can be used to revise existing information materials or to develop new materials that provide correct, balanced, quantified, understandable and unbiased information on CRC screening.
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.