Trial reportMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2016
Shared Medical Decision Making in Lung Cancer Screening: Experienced versus Descriptive Risk Formats.
Trial report in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knowledge translation strategies to enhance lung cancer screening programme implementation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025Pooled it
- Insufficient evidence for interactive or animated graphics for communicating probability.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Pooled it
- Educating physicians on strong opioids by descriptive versus simulated-experience formats: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2022Trial
- The Impact of 4 Risk Communication Interventions on Cancer Screening Preferences and Knowledge.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Trial
- Impact of a Lung Cancer Screening Information Film on Informed Decision-making: A Randomized Trial.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2019Trial
- Do visual aids influenced patients' risk perceptions for rare and very rare risks?Patient education and counseling · 2018Trial
- Influence of Explanatory Images on Risk Perceptions and Treatment Preference.Arthritis care & research · 2018Trial
- Crowd-figure-pictograms improve women's knowledge about mammography screening: results from a randomised controlled trial.BMC research notes · 2018Trial
- Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.CHEST pulmonary · 2026Article
- A Description-Experience Framework of the Psychology of Risk.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2022Article
- The development of a decision aid to support Hodgkin lymphoma survivors considering lung cancer screening.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Designing for patient decision-making: Design challenges generated by patients with atrial fibrillation during evaluation of a decision aid prototype.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
- "No thanks, I don't want to see snakes again": a qualitative study of pain management versus preservation of cognition in palliative care patients.BMC palliative care · 2020Article
- Impact of Information Presentation Format on Preference for Total Knee Replacement Surgery.Arthritis care & research · 2019Article
- Article
- Patients' Attitudes Regarding Lung Cancer Screening and Decision Aids. A Survey and Focus Group Study.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2016Article
- Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
- Characterizing the Design of and Emerging Evidence for Health Care Organization-Based Lung Cancer Screening Interventions: A Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
- How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 1: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
- How Synthesis Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format: 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnnual lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans is associated with a survival benefit, but it is also associated with potential harm. Unlike descriptive probability formats, experienced tasks have been shown to decrease perceptions of rare events. The objective of this study was to compare descriptive versus experienced probability formats on patients' knowledge, beliefs, endorsement of screening for heavy smokers, and preference (choice predisposition) to undergo screening.
methodsA total of 276 patients attending an outpatient pulmonary practice were randomized to learn about screening using 1 of 3 formats: numbers only, numbers + icon arrays, numbers + a set of slides illustrating LDCT scans of 250 people in random order that displayed the number of normal scans, false-positive lung nodules, cancers found leading to a life saved, and cancers found leading to death despite treatment.
resultsKnowledge differed between the 3 formats (P= 0.001), with participants randomized to the numbers + icon array format having the highest knowledge score. Beliefs were more favorable among participants randomized to the numbers + experienced format compared with the numbers + icon array format (difference between means [95% confidence interval]= 1.6 [0.4-2.8]). Differences in participants' endorsement of screening (P= 0.4) and choice predisposition (P= 0.6) across probability format mirrored those of beliefs but were not statistically significant. DISCUSSION: Contrary to what we expected, the experienced format increased propensity toward screening compared with the numbers + icon array format, as indicated by more favorable beliefs and nonsignificant trends toward stronger choice predisposition and endorsement. Experienced risk formats may not be a practical approach to improve risk communication for patients deciding whether or not to undergo annual lung cancer 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.