ArticleGerman medical science : GMS e-journal2015
Evidence-based health information and risk competence.
Article in German medical science : GMS e-journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of Three Numerical Presentation Formats on Lay People's Comprehension and Risk Perception of Fact Boxes-A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Trial
- Effect of a Website That Presents Patients' Experiences on Self-Efficacy and Patient Competence of Colorectal Cancer Patients: Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Trial
- Mapping the quality of Norwegian health information -Does it facilitate informed choices?PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- A qualitative exploration of clinicians' strategies to communicate risks to patients in the complex reality of clinical practice.PloS one · 2020Article
- Self-criticism of physicians, patient participation and risk competence.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2015Article
- Increasing the risk competence of patients: an interdisciplinary task.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Consumers and patients want to be included in decisions regarding their own health and have an ethically justified claim on informed decisions. Therefore, sound information is required, but health information is often misleading and based on different interests. The risks of disease and the benefits of medical interventions tend to be overestimated, whereas harm is often underestimated. Evidence-based health information has to fulfil certain criteria, for instance, it should be evidence-based, independent, complete, true as well as understandable. The aim of a medical intervention has to be explained. The different therapeutic options including the option not to intervene have to be delineated. The probabilities for success, lack of success and unwanted side effects have to be communicated in a numerical and understandable manner. Patients have the right to reject medical interventions without any sanctions.
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.