ArticleBMC family practice2020
Risk literacy assessment of general practitioners and medical students using the Berlin Numeracy Test.
Article in BMC family practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of risk literacy, decision-making styles and motivation on clinical reasoning in medical students: an ordinal logistic regression analysis.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Assessing Risk Literacy Skills: Enhancing Healthcare Management among University Students.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- ChatGPT in medical school: how successful is AI in progress testing?Medical education online · 2023Article
- Statistical Literacy in Hand and Upper-Extremity Patients.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2023Article
- Boosting for insight and/or boosting for agency? How to maximize accurate test interpretation with natural frequencies.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- The Effect of an Additional Structured Methods Presentation on Decision-Makers' Reading Time and Opinions on the Helpfulness of the Methods in a Quantitative Report: Nonrandomized Trial.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Knowledge translation of prediction rules: methods to help health professionals understand their trade-offs.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2021Article
- Use of a quantitative data report in a hypothetical decision scenario for health policymaking: a computer-assisted laboratory study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Teaching Medical Students to Communicate Risks Like Military Intelligence Analysts.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe responsibility for helping patients understand potential health benefits and risks, especially regarding screening tests, falls largely to general practitioners (GPs). The Berlin Numeracy Test (BNT) specifically measures risk literacy (i.e., the ability to understand different aspects of statistical numeracy associated with accurate interpretation of information about risks). This study explored the association between risk literacy levels and clinical experience in GPs vs. medical students. Additionally, the effect of GP risk literacy on evaluation of the predictive value of screening tests was examined.
methodsThe participants were 84 GPs and 92 third-year medical students who completed the BNT (total score range 0-4 points). The GPs received an additional case scenario on mammography screening as a simple measure of performance in applying numeracy skills.
resultsDespite having an average of 25.9 years of clinical experience, GPs scored no better than medical students on risk literacy (GPs: 2.33 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.08-2.59; students: 2.34, 95% CI 2.07-2.61; P = .983). Of all GPs, 71.6% (n = 58) greatly overestimated the real predictive value.
conclusionsIn this study, we found no difference in risk literacy between current students and current GPs. GPs lack risk literacy and consequently do not fully understand numeric estimates of probability in routine screening procedures.
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.