ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2014
Improving bone mineral density reporting to patients with an illustration of personal fracture risk.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01507662 (Patient Activation After DXA Result Notification), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Patient Activation After DXA Result Notification
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Executive summary: Italian guidelines for diagnosis, risk stratification, and care continuity of fragility fractures 2021.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Pooled it
- Diet and exercise changes following bone densitometry in the Patient Activation After DXA Result Notification (PAADRN) study.Archives of osteoporosis · 2018Trial
- Racial Differences and Disparities in Osteoporosis-related Bone Health: Results From the PAADRN Randomized Controlled Trial.Medical care · 2017Trial
- Evaluation of a "Just-in-Time" Nurse Consultation on Bone Health: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.The Permanente journal · 2017Trial
- Patient-activation and guideline-concordant pharmacological treatment after bone density testing: the PAADRN randomized controlled trial.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2016Trial
- Effects of a DXA result letter on satisfaction, quality of life, and osteoporosis knowledge: a randomized controlled trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2016Trial
- Activating Patients With a Tailored Bone Density Test Results Letter and Educational Brochure: the PAADRN Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical DensitometryTrial
- Patient-reported reasons for nonadherence to recommended osteoporosis pharmacotherapy.Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhATrial
- Patients' perspectives on adherence to cardiovascular screening consultation and lifestyle changes.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024Article
- Visualizing machine learning-based predictions of postpartum depression risk for lay audiences.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- A multi-modal intervention for Activating Patients at Risk for Osteoporosis (APROPOS): Rationale, design, and uptake of online study intervention material.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2016Article
- Evaluation of disease burden and response to treatment in adults with type 1 Gaucher disease using a validated disease severity scoring system (DS3).Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2015Article
- How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 1: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
- Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
- How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
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 at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo determine patients' preferences for, and understanding of, FRAX® fracture risk conveyed through illustrations.
methodsDrawing on examples from published studies, four illustrations of fracture risk were designed and tested for patient preference, ease of understanding, and perceived risk. We enrolled a convenience sample of adults aged 50 and older at two medical clinics located in the Midwestern and Southern United States. In-person structured interviews were conducted to elicit patient ranking of preference, ease of understanding, and perceived risk for each illustration.
resultsMost subjects (n = 142) were female (64%), Caucasian (76%) and college educated (78%). Of the four risk depictions, a plurality of participants (37%) listed a bar graph as most preferred. Subjects felt this illustration used the stoplight color system to display risk levels well and was the most "clear," "clean," and "easy to read". The majority of subjects (52%) rated the pictogram as the most difficult to understand as this format does not allow people to quickly ascertain their individual risk category.
conclusionsCommunicating risk to patients with illustrations can be done effectively with clearly designed illustrations responsive to patient preference.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01507662.
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.