Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33196663›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

A systematic review of risk communication in clinical trials: How does it influence decisions to participate and what are the best methods to improve understanding in a trial context?

Maeve Coyle, Katie Gillies

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05717465 (Communicating Risks), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05717465 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Communicating Risks: Consent for Lumbar Puncture

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity College London HospitalsRan2022 to 2022Enrolled52ConditionsInformed Consent, Health Literacy, Risk, Spinal Puncture, NeurosurgeryArmsAnatomy diagrams, Standard informed consent
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Weighing Open Science Against Research Participation Burden in Informed Consent: A Randomized Pilot Study.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Migrants Living in the United Kingdom and Their Perceptions of Participation in Health Research: A Mixed-Methods Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

2 authors.

Maeve CoyleHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Katie GilliesHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7890-2854

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Medical Research Council MR/L01193X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective risk communication is challenging. Ensuring potential trial participants' understand 'risk' information presented to them is a key aspect of the informed consent process within clinical trials, yet minimal research has looked specifically at how to communicate probabilities to support decisions about trial participation. This study reports a systematic review of the literature focusing on presentation of probabilistic information or understanding of risk by potential trial participants.

methodsA search strategy for risk communication in clinical trials was designed and informed by systematic reviews of risk communication in treatment and screening contexts and supplemented with trial participation terms. Extracted data included study characteristics and the main interventions/findings of each study. Explanatory studies that investigated the methods for presenting probabilistic information within participant information leaflets for a clinical trial were included, as were interventions that focused on optimising understanding of probabilistic information within the context of a clinical trial.

resultsThe search strategy identified a total of 4931 studies. Nineteen papers were selected for full text screening, and seven studies included. All reported results from risk communication studies that aimed to support potential trial participants' decision making set within hypothetical trials. Five of these were randomised comparisons of risk communication interventions, and two were prospectively designed, non-randomised studies. Study interventions focused on probability presentation, risk framing and risk interpretation with a wide variety of interventions being evaluated and considerable heterogeneity in terms of outcomes assessed. Studies show conflicting findings when it comes to how best to present information, although numerical, particularly frequency formats and some visual aids appear to have promise.

conclusionsThe evidence base surrounding risk communication in clinical trials indicates that there is as yet no clear optimal method for improving participant understanding, or clear consensus on how it affects their willingness to participate. Further research into risk communication within trials is needed to help illuminate the mechanisms underlying risk perception and understanding and provide appropriate ways to present and communicate risk in a trial context so as to further promote informed choices about participation. A key focus for future research should be to investigate the potential for learning in the evidence on risk communication from treatment and screening decisions when applied to decisions about trial participation.

Indexed as

CommunicationClinical Trials as TopicDecision MakingHumansInformed ConsentPatient ParticipationRisk

Identifiers

PMID33196663
PMCPMC7668608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.