ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2017
Communicating projected survival with treatments for chronic kidney disease: patient comprehension and perspectives on visual aids.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Communicating health risk in chronic kidney disease: a scoping review.Journal of nephrology · 2025Article
- Navigating pancreas transplant perceptions: assessing public sentiment and strategies using AI-driven analysis.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- How Do Patients with Life-Limiting Illness and Caregivers Want End-Of-Life Prognostic Information Delivered? A Pilot Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 1: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
- Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMortality in end stage renal disease (ESRD) is higher than many malignancies. There is no data about the optimal way to present information about projected survival to patients with ESRD. In other areas, graphs have been shown to be more easily understood than narrative. We examined patient comprehension and perspectives on graphs in communicating projected survival in chronic kidney disease (CKD).
methodsOne hundred seventy-seven patients with CKD were shown 4 different graphs presenting post transplantation survival data. Patients were asked to interpret a Kaplan Meier curve, pie chart, histogram and pictograph and answer a multi-choice question to determine understanding.
resultsWe measured interpretation, usefulness and preference for the graphs. Most patients correctly interpreted the graphs. There was asignificant difference in the percentage of correct answers when comparing different graph types (p = 0.0439). The pictograph was correctly interpreted by 81% of participants, the histogram by 79%, pie chart by 77% and Kaplan Meier by 69%. Correct interpretation of the histogram was associated with educational level (p = 0.008) and inversely associated with age > 65 (p = 0.008). Of those who interpreted all four graphs correctly, there was an association with employment (p = 0.001) and New Zealand European ethnicity (p = 0.002). 87% of patients found the graphs useful. The pie chart was the most preferred graph (p 0.002). The readability of the graphs may have been improved with an alternative colour choice, especially in the setting of visual impairment.
conclusionVisual aids, can be beneficial adjuncts to discussing survival in CKD.
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.