Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28832633›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Can facts trump unconditional trust? Evidence-based information halves the influence of physicians' non-evidence-based cancer screening recommendations.

Odette Wegwarth, Gert G Wagner, Gerd Gigerenzer

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04380428 (Risk Literacy Among Portuguese Medical and Dentistry Students - a Cohort Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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.

NCT04380428 completednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Risk Literacy Among Portuguese Medical and Dentistry Students - a Cohort Study

TypeobservationalSponsorHarding Center for Risk LiteracyRan2020 to 2020Enrolled950ConditionsMedical Education, Decision Support TechniquesArmsNo Intervention. Observational study.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Communicating Time-to-Event Treatment Effects in Randomized Trials: A Randomized Experiment among General Practitioners.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Odette WegwarthMax Planck Institute for Human Development, Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Berlin, Germany.
Gert G WagnerGerman Institute for Economic Research and Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.
Gerd GigerenzerMax Planck Institute for Human Development, Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Berlin, Germany.
Max Planck Institute for Human Development · DEGerman Institute for Economic Research · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Informed decision making in medicine, defined as basing one's decision on the best current medical evidence, requires both informed physicians and informed patients. In cancer screening, however, studies document that these prerequisites are not yet met. Many physicians do not know or understand the medical evidence behind screening tests, do not adequately counsel (asymptomatic) people on screening, and make recommendations that conflict with existing guidelines on informed choice. Consistent with this situation, nation-wide studies showed that the general public misperceives the contribution of cancer screening but that understanding considerably improves when evidence-based information is provided. However, can evidence-based patient information about cancer screening make people also less likely to simply follow a physician's non-evidence-based advice? A national sample of 897 German citizens, surveyed in face-to-face computer-assisted personal interviews, received either evidence-based (e.g., absolute risks on benefits and harms; n = 451) or non-evidence-based (e.g., relative risks on benefits only; n = 446) patient information about a cancer screening test and were then asked to make their initial cancer screening choice. Thereafter, participants received a hypothetical physician's recommendation, which was non-evidence-based in terms of existing guidelines on informed decision making (i.e., reporting either benefits or harms but not both; no provision of numbers). When provided with non-evidence-based patient information (n = 446), a mean of 33.1% of 235 participants whose initial screening choice contradicted the hypothetical physician's non-evidence-based recommendation adjusted their choice in deference to that recommendation (95% CI: 27.4 to 39.4%), whereas with evidence-based patient information (n = 451), only half as many, a mean of 16.0% of 225 (95% CI: 11.8 to 21.4%), modified their choice. Thus, evidence-based patient information makes people less likely to simply follow non-evidence-based recommendations of physicians and supports people in making evidence-based decisions even when not adequately counseled on cancer screening.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticePractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'TrustHumansNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID28832633
PMCPMC5568103
OpenAlexW2749964709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.