Trial reportPloS one2021
Comparing the impact of an icon array versus a bar graph on preference and understanding of risk information: Results from an online, randomized study.
Trial report in PloS one, 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.
- Graphical Perception of Icon Arrays versus Bar Charts for Value Comparisons in Health Risk Communication.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics · 2026Article
- Impact of Result Displays in an Anogenital Symptom Checker App on Health-seeking Behaviours: A Cross-sectional, Vignette-based Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Continuous adaptation of conversation aids for uterine fibroids treatment options in a four-year multi-center implementation project.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Decision aids for patients with carotid stenosis.Journal of vascular surgery · 2024Review
- Article
- Two centuries of vaccination: historical and conceptual approach and future perspectives.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
- The Role of Information Visualisation and Anecdotal Evidence in Medical Students' Clinical Reasoning Process: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFew studies have examined the best way to convey the probability of serious events occurring in the future (i.e., risk of stroke or death) to persons with low numeracy or graph literacy proficiency. To address this gap, we developed and user-tested a bar graph and compared it to icon arrays to assess its impact on understanding and preference for viewing risk information.
objectivesTo determine the: (i) formats' impact on participants' understanding of risk information; (ii) formats' impact on understanding and format preference across numeracy and graph literacy subgroups; (iii) rationale supporting participants' preference for each graphical display format.
methodsAn online sample (evenly made up of participants with high and low objective numeracy and graph literacy) was randomized to view either the icon array or the bar graph. Each format conveyed the risk of major stroke and death five years after choosing surgery, a stent, or medication to treat carotid artery stenosis. Participants answered questions to assess their understanding of the risk information. Lastly, both formats were presented in parallel, and participants were asked to identify their preferred format to view risk information and explain their preference.
resultsOf the 407 participants, 197 were assigned the icon array and 210 the bar graph. Understanding of risk information and format preference did not differ significantly between the two trial arms, irrespective of numeracy and graph literacy proficiency. High numeracy and graph literacy proficiency was associated with high understanding (p<0.01) and a preference for the bar graph (p = 0.01).
conclusionWe found no evidence to demonstrate the superiority of one format over another on understanding. The majority of participants preferred viewing the risk information using the bar graph format.
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.