Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27008650›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2016

Provider Recommendations in the Face of Scientific Uncertainty: An Analysis of Audio-Recorded Discussions about Vitamin D.

Derjung M Tarn, Debora A Paterniti, Neil S Wenger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

3 authors.

Derjung M TarnDepartment of Family Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California-Los Angeles, 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA. dtarn@mednet.ucla.edu.
Debora A PaternitiDepartment of Sociology, Sonoma State University, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Neil S WengerDivision of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

Physician-Patient Communication ProjectR01AT005883 · NCCIH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI TARN, DERJUNG M · 2010 to 2013
$2.0M
NCCIH NIH HHS R01 AT005883
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about how providers communicate recommendations when scientific uncertainty exists.

objectivesTo compare provider recommendations to those in the scientific literature, with a focus on whether uncertainty was communicated.

designQualitative (inductive systematic content analysis) and quantitative analysis of previously collected audio-recorded provider-patient office visits.

participantsSixty-one providers and a socio-economically diverse convenience sample of 603 of their patients from outpatient community- and academic-based primary care, integrative medicine, and complementary and alternative medicine provider offices in Southern California. MAIN MEASURES: Comparison of provider information-giving about vitamin D to professional guidelines and scientific information for which conflicting recommendations or insufficient scientific evidence exists; certainty with which information was conveyed.

resultsNinety-two (15.3 %) of 603 visit discussions touched upon issues related to vitamin D testing, management and benefits. Vitamin D deficiency screening was discussed with 23 (25 %) patients, the definition of vitamin D deficiency with 21 (22.8 %), the optimal range for vitamin D levels with 26 (28.3 %), vitamin D supplementation dosing with 50 (54.3 %), and benefits of supplementation with 46 (50 %). For each of the professional guidelines/scientific information examined, providers conveyed information that deviated from professional guidelines and the existing scientific evidence. Of 166 statements made about vitamin D in this study, providers conveyed 160 (96.4 %) with certainty, without mention of any equivocal or contradictory evidence in the scientific literature. No uncertainty was mentioned when vitamin D dosing was discussed, even when recommended dosing was higher than guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Providers convey the vast majority of information and recommendations about vitamin D with certainty, even though the scientific literature contains inconsistent recommendations and declarations of inadequate evidence. Not communicating uncertainty blurs the contrast between evidence-based recommendations and those without evidence. Providers should explore best practices for involving patients in decision-making by acknowledging the uncertainty behind their recommendations.

Indexed as

Physician-Patient RelationsPhysicians, Primary CareUncertaintyVitamin DAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDietary SupplementsFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicTape RecordingVitamin D DeficiencyVitamin Dcomplementary and alternative medicinedietary supplementsprovider–patient relationsqualitative research methodsscientific uncertaintyvitamin D

Identifiers

PMID27008650
PMCPMC4945557

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.