SynthesisBMJ open2017
Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 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
57 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- [The influence of diagnostic labels on treatment preferences of people with musculoskeletal pain : A systematic literature review].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The Effect of a Surgeon Communication Strategy on Treatment Preference for Thyroid Cancer: A Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Effect of diagnostic labelling on management intentions for non-specific low back pain: A randomized scenario-based experiment.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2022Trial
- Trial
- A randomised on-line survey exploring how health condition labels affect behavioural intentions.PloS one · 2020Trial
- Mapping terminology and domains related to spirituality in oncology: scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- What does Dr Google tell us about tendinopathies? An Italian analysis of online content.Pain management · 2025Article
- The Use of ChatGPT-4.0 to Simplify Breast Pathology Reports: A Study on Readability and Accuracy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Subtle Differences in Physician Communication and Substantial Impacts on Patient Decision-Making About Low-Value Care: An Experimental Vignette Study.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Potential role of large language models and personalized medicine to innovate cardiac rehabilitation.World journal of clinical cases · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Accuracy, Reliability, Consistency, and Readability of Different Large Language Models in Restorative Dentistry.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025Article
- Shared Decision-Making and Discontinuation of Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025Article
- Effect of Changes in Canine Thyroid Cancer Terminology on Caregiver Anxiety Levels and Treatment Preferences in a Scenario-Based Study.Veterinary and comparative oncology · 2025Article
- Risk perception of patients with ductal carcinomaHistology and histopathology · 2025Review
- Negative expectations and related nocebo effects in shoulder pain: a perspective for clinicians and researchers.Pain management · 2025Review
- A Multimodal Chiropractic Approach to the Treatment and Management of Medial Elbow Injuries in Elite Javelin Throwers: A Case Series.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2025Article
- Article
- Controversial terminology in root and canal anatomy: A comprehensive review.European endodontic journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesChanging terminology for low-risk, screen-detected conditions has now been recommended by several expert groups in order to prevent overdiagnosis and reduce the associated harms of overtreatment. However, the effect of terminology on patients' preferences for management is not well understood. This review aims to synthesise existing studies on terminology and its impact on management decision making.
designSystematic review.
methodsStudies were included that compared two or more terminologies to describe the same condition and measured the effect on treatment or management preferences and/or choices. Studies were identified via database searches from inception to April 2017, and from reference lists. Two authors evaluated the eligibility of studies with verification from the study team, extracted and crosschecked data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.
resultsOf the 1399 titles identified, seven studies, all of which included hypothetical scenarios, met the inclusion criteria. Six studies were quantitative and one was qualitative. Six of the studies were of high quality. Studies covered a diverse range of conditions: ductal carcinoma in situ (3), gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (1), conjunctivitis (1), polycystic ovary syndrome (1) and a bony fracture (1). The terminologies compared in each study varied based on the condition assessed. Based on a narrative synthesis of the data, when a more medicalised or precise term was used to describe the condition, it generally resulted in a shift in preference towards more invasive managements, and/or higher ratings of anxiety and perceived severity of the condition.
conclusionsDifferent terminology given for the same condition influenced management preferences and psychological outcomes in a consistent pattern in these studies. Changing the terminology may be one strategy to reduce patient preferences for aggressive management responses to low-risk conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO: CRD42016035643.
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.