Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25224777›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2015

Influence of anchoring on miscarriage risk perception associated with amniocentesis.

Regina Nuccio, S Shahrukh Hashmi, Joan Mastrobattista, Sarah Jane Noblin, Jerrie Refuerzo, Janice L Smith, Claire N Singletary

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 89% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Cognitive Biases of Consumers' Risk Perception of Foodborne Diseases in China: Examining Anchoring Effect.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Regina NuccioBaptist Memorial Health Care Corporation, 2927 Tishomingo Lane, Memphis, TN, 38111, USA, regina.nuccio@gmail.com.
S Shahrukh Hashmi
Joan Mastrobattista
Sarah Jane Noblin
Jerrie Refuerzo
Janice L Smith
Claire N Singletary
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · USBaptist Memorial Health Care · USBaylor College of Medicine · USHouston Graduate School of Theology · USLabCorp (United States) · USTexas Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One factor women consider when deciding whether to pursue amniocentesis is the risk of miscarriage. People use mechanisms like anchoring, or the prior belief regarding the magnitude of risk, as a frame of reference for new information. This study aimed to determine a woman's perception of miscarriage risk associated with amniocentesis before and after genetic counseling and to determine what factors anchor a woman's perception of miscarriage risk. One hundred thirteen women being seen for prenatal genetic counseling and possible amniocentesis at six Houston clinics participated in the two-part anonymous survey. While most women (56.7 %) perceived the risk as low or average pre-counseling and indicated the numeric risk of amniocentesis as <1 %, significantly more patients (73 %) correctly identified the numeric risk as <1 % post-counseling (p < 0.0001). However, the majority of patients' qualitative risk perception did not change after the genetic counseling session (60 %). Those who changed their feeling about the risk after counseling showed a decreased perception of the risk (p < 0.0001). Participants who elected amniocentesis had a significantly lower perception of the risk (p = 0.017) whereas those who declined amniocentesis were more likely to view the risk as high (p = 0.004). The only two anchoring factors that had an effect were having a friend or relative with a personal or family history of a genetic disorder (p = 0.001) and having a child already (p = 0.038); both were associated with a lower risk perception. The lack of significant factors may reflect the uniqueness of each patient's risk assessment framework and reinforces the importance of genetic counseling to elucidate individual concerns, particularly as non-invasive prenatal testing becomes more widely available and further complicates the prenatal testing landscape.

Indexed as

PerceptionAbortion, SpontaneousAdultAmniocentesisDecision MakingFemaleGenetic CounselingHumansPregnancyRisk

Identifiers

PMID25224777
OpenAlexW2077977578

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.