Trial reportMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2017
Utilization of Continuous "Spinners" to Communicate Risk.
Trial report in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2017. 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.
- Do visual aids influenced patients' risk perceptions for rare and very rare risks?Patient education and counseling · 2018Trial
- The Lure of Beauty: People Select Representations of Statistical Information Largely Based on Attractiveness, Not Comprehensibility.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision MakingTrial
- Benefits and harms of aspirin to reduce colorectal cancer risk: a cross-sectional study of methods to communicate risk in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
- Impact of Information Presentation Format on Preference for Total Knee Replacement Surgery.Arthritis care & research · 2019Article
- Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
- How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision MakingArticle
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs patients become more involved in their medical care, they must consider the specific probabilities of both positive and negative outcomes associated with different treatments. Patients who are low in numeracy may be at a disadvantage when making these decisions. This study examined the use of a "spinner" to present probabilistic information compared to a numerical format and icon array.
designSubjects ( n = 151) were asked to imagine they suffered from chronic back pain. Two equally effective medications, each with a different incidence of rare and common side effects, were described. Subjects were randomized to 1 of 3 risk presentation formats: numeric only, numeric with icon arrays, or numeric with spinners, and answered questions regarding their risk knowledge, medication preference, and how much they liked the presentation format.
resultsCompared with the numeric only format, both the spinner and icon array increased risk knowledge and were rated more likeable by subjects. Subjects viewing the spinner format were also more likely to prefer the pill with the lowest side-effect burden. LIMITATIONS: The relatively small size, convenience sample, and hypothetical scenario were limitations of this study.
conclusionsThe use of continuous spinners presents a new approach for communicating risk to patients that may aid in their decision making.
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.