ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2021
Decision making and framing effects in multiple sclerosis.
Article in European journal of neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- "A second birthday"? Experiences of persons with multiple sclerosis treated with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation-a qualitative interview study.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: "classic" knowledge and recent acquisitions.Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria · 2023Article
- [The corona pandemic and multiple sclerosis: vaccinations and their implications for patients-Part 1: recommendations].Der Nervenarzt · 2021Review
- Association of treatment decision with personality, coping strategies and impulsivity in patients with multiple sclerosis.Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies reported reduced decision-making abilities for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) relative to healthy controls (HC). This study aimed to evaluate whether these problems arise when sampling information or when pondering about the evidence collected.
methodsIn a cross-sectional, controlled study, 43 relapsing-remitting MS patients (RRMS; Expanded Disability Status Scale 1.5, range 0-4) and 53 HC performed an information sampling task ('beads task'), a health-related framing task, and neuropsychological background tests.
resultsIn the beads task, patients collected as much information as HC prior to a decision. However, there were twice as many patients as HC making irrational decisions, that is, decisions against the evidence collected (RRMS: 26/43, 60%; HC: 16/53, 30%; p = 0.003). Compared to HC, patients also showed a stronger framing effect, that is, they were more strongly biased by the way health-related information was presented (p < 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.5). Overall, the framing effect predicted whether a participant would make irrational decisions (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.29-3.49, p < 0.001).
conclusionsPredecisional information sampling is intact in RRMS. However, compared to HC, patients are more likely to make irrational decisions and to be biased by the way health-related information is framed. This warrants caution in communication, especially in the medical context, with 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.