SynthesisSystematic reviews2016
Interventions and assessment tools addressing key concepts people need to know to appraise claims about treatment effects: a systematic mapping review.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do studies of interventions to improve laypeople's critical thinking about health choices assess potential harms? A systematic review.BMJ open · 2026Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Evaluating student's ability to assess treatment claims: validating a German version of the Claim Evaluation Tools.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Prioritisation of Informed Health Choices (IHC) key concepts to be included in lower secondary school resources: A consensus study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Development and Piloting of a Web-Based Tool to Teach Relative and Absolute Risk Reductions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Using claims in the media to teach essential concepts for evidence-based healthcare.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2021Review
- Unwanted effects of treatments for depression in children and adolescents: a mapping of systematic reviews.BMJ open · 2020Review
- Development of the informed health choices resources in four countries to teach primary school children to assess claims about treatment effects: a qualitative study employing a user-centred approach.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2020Article
- The Norwegian public's ability to assess treatment claims: results of a cross-sectional study of critical health literacy.F1000Research · 2020Article
- Development of mass media resources to improve the ability of parents of primary school children in Uganda to assess the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of treatments: a human-centred design approach.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2019Article
- "A waste of time without patients": The views of patient representatives attending a workshop in evidence-based practice.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2018Article
- Article
- Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople's ability to appraise claims about treatment effects is crucial for informed decision-making. Our objective was to systematically map this area of research in order to (a) provide an overview of interventions targeting key concepts that people need to understand to assess treatment claims and (b) to identify assessment tools used to evaluate people's understanding of these concepts. The findings of this review provide a starting point for decisions about which key concepts to address when developing new interventions, and which assessment tools should be considered.
methodsWe conducted a systematic mapping review of interventions and assessment tools addressing key concepts important for people to be able to assess treatment claims. A systematic literature search was done by a reserach librarian in relevant databases. Judgement about inclusion of studies and data collection was done by at least two researchers. We included all quantitative study designs targeting one or more of the key concepts, and targeting patients, healthy members of the public, and health professionals. The studies were divided into four categories: risk communication and decision aids, evidence-based medicine and critical appraisal, understanding of controlled trials, and science education. Findings were summarised descriptively.
resultsWe included 415 studies, of which the interventions and assessment tools we identified included only a handful of the key concepts. The most common key concepts in interventions were "Treatments usually have beneficial and harmful effects," "Treatment comparisons should be fair," "Compare like with like," and "Single studies can be misleading." A variety of assessment tools were identified, but only four assessment tools included 10 or more key concepts.
conclusionsThere is great potential for developing learning and assessment tools targeting key concepts that people need to understand to assess claims about treatment effects. There is currently no instrument covering assessment of all these key concepts.
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.