Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31740461›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2019

Benefits and harms of aspirin to reduce colorectal cancer risk: a cross-sectional study of methods to communicate risk in primary care.

Peter Nguyen, Jennifer McIntosh, Adrian Bickerstaffe, Sanjaya Maddumarachchi, Kara-Lynne Cummings, Jon D Emery

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2019. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Peter NguyenCentre for Cancer Research, Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Jennifer McIntoshCentre for Cancer Research, Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Adrian BickerstaffeCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Sanjaya MaddumarachchiCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Kara-Lynne CummingsPrimary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group (PC4), Melbourne, Australia.
Jon D EmeryCentre for Cancer Research, Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group (PC4), Melbourne, Australia; Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
University of Melbourne · AUPrimary Care Collaborative Clinical Trials Group · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew Australian guidelines recommend that GPs actively consider prescribing low-dose aspirin to patients aged 50-70 years to reduce their risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients and GPs need to understand the relative benefits and harms to support informed decision making.

aimTo develop and examine different methods to communicate the benefits and harms of taking aspirin for CRC prevention. DESIGN AND

settingA cross-sectional, vignette study with patients aged 50-70 years consecutively recruited from general practices in Melbourne, Australia, between July and August 2018.

methodSummary estimates from meta-analyses of the effects of aspirin on the incidence of CRC, cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal bleeding, and incidence rates in the Australian population to estimate outcomes in a hypothetical population of 10 000 people aged 50-70 years. These estimates were presented using four different risk communication formats. Participants were shown these different formats and asked if they would take aspirin to prevent CRC.

resultsA total of 313 participants were recruited (95.1% recruitment rate), of whom 304 completed the study. Most participants (71.7-75.3%) reported they would take aspirin irrespective of risk format presented. Bar charts (odds ratio [OR] 1.20, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.01 to 1.44) and expected frequency trees (OR 1.18, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.41) were more strongly associated with the intentions to take aspirin compared with icon arrays. Bar charts were most preferred for presenting risk information.

conclusionA large proportion of participants in this study intended to take aspirin to reduce their CRC risk regardless of risk communication format. Bar charts and expected frequency trees were the preferred methods to present the benefits and harms of taking aspirin to prevent CRC.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPrimary Health CareAgedAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalAspirinAustraliaColorectal NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGeneral PracticeHealth CommunicationHumansMaleMiddle AgedOdds RatioPatient Education as TopicAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalAspirinaspirincolorectal cancerdecision makinggeneral practiceprimary health carerisk communication

Identifiers

PMID31740461
PMCPMC6863681
OpenAlexW2991301536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.