ReviewPatient education and counseling2019
Communicating uncertainty in cancer prognosis: A review of web-based prognostic tools.
Review in Patient education and counseling, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Improving communication of prognostic uncertainty in advanced illness: a realist review.BMJ open · 2026Pooled it
- Trial
- Risk communication in a patient decision aid for radiotherapy in breast cancer: How to deal with uncertainty?Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Trial
- Optimizing risk-reducing surgery and aspirin decision aids for Lynch syndrome carriers using the person-based approach: A think-aloud interview study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Uncertainties in the NICU: a scoping review to inform a tailored taxonomy.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Article
- Uncertainty of risk estimates from clinical prediction models: rationale, challenges, and approaches.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- The Value of Clinical Prediction Models in General Practice: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Perspectives of People With Lived Experience of Depression and General Practitioners.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- The impact of a web-based prognostic calculator on prognostic confidence in outpatient palliative care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Prognostic disclosure in oncology - current communication models: a scoping review.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2022Article
- Prognostic Uncertainty in Critically Ill Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury: A Multicenter Qualitative Study.Neurocritical care · 2021Article
- Great future or greedy venture: Precision medicine needs philosophy.Health science reports · 2021Review
- What do patients and health care professionals view as important attributes in radiotherapy decisions? Input for a breast cancer patient decision aid.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Article
- The Effects of Patient-Centered Communication on Patient Engagement, Health-Related Quality of Life, Service Quality Perception and Patient Satisfaction in Patients with Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study in Türkiye.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective To review how web-based prognosis tools for cancer patients and clinicians describe aleatory (risk estimates) and epistemic (imprecision in risk estimates) uncertainties. Methods We reviewed prognostic tools available online and extracted all uncertainty descriptions. We adapted an existing classification and classified each extracted statement by presentation of uncertainty. Results We reviewed 222 different prognostic risk tools, which produced 772 individual estimates. When describing aleatory uncertainty, almost all (90%) prognostic tools included a quantitative description, such as "chances of survival after surgery are 10%", though there was heterogeneity in the use of percentages, natural frequencies, and use of graphics. Only 14% of tools described epistemic uncertainty. Of those that did, most used a qualitative prefix such as "about" or "up to", while 22 tools described quantitative descriptions using confidence intervals or ranges. Conclusions Considerable heterogeneity exists in the way uncertainties are communicated in cancer prognostic tools. Few tools describe epistemic uncertainty. This variation is predominately explained by a lack of evidence and consensus in risk communication, particularly for epistemic uncertainty. Practice Implications As precision medicine seeks to improve prognostic estimates, the community may not be equipped with the tools to communicate the results accurately and effectively to clinicians and patients.
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.