ArticlePloS one2017
Impact of numeracy on understanding of prostate cancer risk reduction in PSA screening.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Community-based health literacy focused intervention for cervical cancer control among Black women living with human immunodeficiency virus: A randomized pilot trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Trial
- Context Matters: Emotional Sensitivity to Probabilities and the Bias for Action in Cancer Treatment Decisions.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023Article
- Understanding and communicating epidemiological measures of risk and benefit.Family practice · 2023Article
- Visual Preoperative Risk Depiction Tools for Shared Decision-making: A Pilot Study from the Surgeon's Perspective.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
- Prediction of future risk of any and higher-grade prostate cancer based on the PLCO and SELECT trials.BMC urology · 2022Article
- Understanding and Communicating Risk: Assessing Both Relative and Absolute Risk Is Absolutely Necessary.JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2022Article
- Framing the Clinical Encounter: Shared Decision-Making, Mammography Screening, and Decision Satisfaction.Journal of health communication · 2020Article
- A qualitative exploration of clinicians' strategies to communicate risks to patients in the complex reality of clinical practice.PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
- Assessment of men's risk thresholds to proceed with prostate biopsy for the early detection of prostate cancer.International urology and nephrology · 2019Article
- Prostate cancer: Numeracy and understanding of risk reduction of PSA screening.Nature reviews. Urology · 2018Review
- Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
- How Difference Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 1: 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer in men of average risk remains controversial. Patients' ability to incorporate risk reduction data into their decision-making may depend on their numeracy. We assessed the impact of patients' numeracy on their understanding of the risk reduction benefits of PSA screening. Men attending a general internal medicine clinic were invited to complete a survey. Four versions of the survey each included a three-item numeracy test and PSA risk reduction data, framed one of four ways: absolute (ARR) versus relative risk reduction (RRR), with or without baseline risk (BR). Respondents were asked to adjust their perceived risk of prostate-cancer mortality using the data presented. Accuracy of risk reduction was evaluated relative to how risk data were framed. Among a total of 200 respondents, a majority incorrectly answered one or more of the numeracy items. Overall accuracy of risk adjustment was only 20%. Accuracy varied with data framing: when presented with RRR, respondents were 13% accurate without BR and 31% accurate with BR; when presented with ARR, they were 0% accurate without BR and 35% accurate with BR. Including BR data significantly improved accuracy for both RRR (P = 0.03) and ARR groups (P < 0.01). Accuracy was significantly related to numeracy; numeracy scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 were associated with accuracy rates of six, five, nine, and 36 percent, respectively (P < 0.01). Overall, numeracy was significantly associated with the accuracy of interpreting quantitative benefits of PSA screening. Alternative methods of communicating risk may facilitate shared decision-making in the use of PSA screening for early detection of prostate cancer.
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.