ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2021
Optimism bias in understanding neonatal prognoses.
Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimistic vs Pessimistic Message Framing in Communicating Prognosis to Parents of Very Preterm Infants: The COPE Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Case Report: Tracheobronchomalacia after a two-stage surgical approach to treat congenital diaphragmatic hernia with hepatopulmonary fusion.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- The Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: A Focus on Definitions for Clinical Nephrologists.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Unrealistic optimism about treatment risks for acute appendicitis.The British journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Response to comment on "Optimism bias in understanding neonatal prognoses".Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2021Article
- Relationship between physician prognosis bias and parental optimism bias.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2021Article
- Gestation-Based Viability-Difficult Decisions with Far-Reaching Consequences.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDiscrepancies between physician and parent neonatal prognostic expectations are common. Optimism bias is a possible explanation. STUDY
designParents interpreted hypothetical neonatal prognoses in an online survey.
resultsGood prognoses tended to be interpreted accurately, while poor prognoses were interpreted as less than the stated value. One-third of participants consistently overstated survival for the three lowest prognoses, compared to the sample as a whole. Three significant predictors of such optimistic interpretations were single-parent status (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.2-0.75; p = 0.005), African-American descent (OR 3.78; 95% CI 1.63-8.98; p = 0.002) and the belief that physicians misrepresented prognoses (OR 3.11; 95% CI 1.47-6.65; p = 0.003). Participants' explanations echoed research on optimism bias in clinical and decision science studies.
conclusionParticipants accepted positive prognoses for critically ill neonates, but reinterpreted negative ones as being unduly pessimistic demonstrating optimism bias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32778685What 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.