ArticlePloS one2017
Can facts trump unconditional trust? Evidence-based information halves the influence of physicians' non-evidence-based cancer screening recommendations.
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.
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.
Risk Literacy Among Portuguese Medical and Dentistry Students - a Cohort Study
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vaccination Intention Following Receipt of Vaccine Information Through Interactive Simulation vs Text Among COVID-19 Vaccine-Hesitant Adults During the Omicron Wave in Germany.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Crowd-figure-pictograms improve women's knowledge about mammography screening: results from a randomised controlled trial.BMC research notes · 2018Trial
- 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 · 2026Article
- Processes for Developing Plain Language Versions of Guidelines Recommendations: A Scoping Review.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- The Evidence Effect: How Fact Boxes Shift Perceptions of Lung Cancer Screening in Austrian Medical Practice.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- The impact of nontransparent health communication during the COVID-19 pandemic on vaccine-hesitant people's perception of vaccines.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Breast Cancer in Asia: Incidence, Mortality, Early Detection, Mammography Programs, and Risk-Based Screening Initiatives.Cancers · 2022Review
- Text-Based vs. Graphical Information Formats in Sepsis Prevention and Early Detection: A Randomized Controlled Trial on Informed Choice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Using variation between countries to estimate demand for Cochrane reviews when access is free: a cost-benefit analysis.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Assessment of German Public Attitudes Toward Health Communications With Varying Degrees of Scientific Uncertainty Regarding COVID-19.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- When evidence says no: gynaecologists' reasons for (not) recommending ineffective ovarian cancer screening.BMJ quality & safety · 2020Article
- Women's perception, attitudes, and intended behavior towards predictive epigenetic risk testing for female cancers in 5 European countries: a cross-sectional online survey.BMC public health · 2019Article
- What benefits and harms are important for a decision about cervical screening? A study of the perspective of different subgroups of women.Patient preference and adherence · 2019Article
- US gynecologists' estimates and beliefs regarding ovarian cancer screening's effectiveness 5 years after release of the PLCO evidence.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
- How Synthesis Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format: 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.