SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2021
Imprecision and Preferences in Interpretation of Verbal Probabilities in Health: a Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Insufficient evidence for interactive or animated graphics for communicating probability.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Pooled it
- Communication of Diagnostic Uncertainty in Primary Care and Its Impact on Patient Experience: an Integrative Systematic Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Strategies to optimize comprehension of numerical medication instructions: A systematic review and concept map.Patient education and counseling · 2022Pooled it
- Communicating certainty via verbal probability phrases: comparing health contexts with no context.BMC primary care · 2025Trial
- Prepare, don't scare: Rethinking cognitive readiness before epilepsy surgery.Epilepsia open · 2026Article
- Impact of Philips device recall on adults with obstructive sleep apnea treated with PAP therapy: Results of a cross-national patient survey.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2026Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes and Sources of Information About Adverse Drug Reactions-A Survey Study Among Patients and Healthcare Professionals in Poland.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- Large Language Models and Communication of Medical Probabilities.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Article
- Bridging numerical and verbal probabilities: Construction and application of the Chinese Lexicon of Verbal Probability.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Behaviorally informed digital campaigns and their association with social media engagement and COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Belize.BMC global and public health · 2024Article
- Health literacy, numeracy, graph literacy, and digital literacy: an overview of definitions, evaluation methods, and best practices.European journal of cardiovascular nursing · 2024Review
- Use of Persuasive Language in Communication of Risk during Prostate Cancer Treatment Consultations.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- Clearing the air: evaluating institutions' social media health messaging on wildfire and smoke risks in the US Pacific Northwest.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Visualizing machine learning-based predictions of postpartum depression risk for lay audiences.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Political orientation of online media sources and reporting of Covid-19 vaccine myocarditis.PloS one · 2024Article
- Research-Problem Validity in Primary Research: Precision and Transparency in Characterizing Past Knowledge.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023Article
- Thyroid Cancer Risk Communication in Patients with Thyroid Nodules.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023Article
- Association between Risk Communication Format and Perceived Risk of Adverse Events after COVID-19 Vaccination among US Adults.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Liver drains after surgery: what is the real practice? An international snapshot from the Li.DR.A.S. survey.Updates in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMany health providers and communicators who are concerned that patients will not understand numbers instead use verbal probabilities (e.g., terms such as "rare" or "common") to convey the gist of a health message.
objectiveTo assess patient interpretation of and preferences for verbal probability information in health contexts.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of literature published through September 2020. Original studies conducted in English with samples representative of lay populations were included if they assessed health-related information and elicited either (a) numerical estimates of verbal probability terms or (b) preferences for verbal vs. quantitative risk information.
resultsWe identified 33 original studies that referenced 145 verbal probability terms, 45 of which were included in at least two studies and 19 in three or more. Numerical interpretations of each verbal term were extremely variable. For example, average interpretations of the term "rare" ranged from 7 to 21%, and for "common," the range was 34 to 71%. In a subset of 9 studies, lay estimates of verbal probability terms were far higher than the standard interpretations established by the European Commission for drug labels. In 10 of 12 samples where preferences were elicited, most participants preferred numerical information, alone or in combination with verbal labels.
conclusionNumerical interpretation of verbal probabilities is extremely variable and does not correspond well to the numerical probabilities established by expert panels. Most patients appear to prefer quantitative risk information, alone or in combination with verbal labels. Health professionals should be aware that avoiding numeric information to describe risks may not match patient preferences, and that patients interpret verbal risk terms in a highly variable way.
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.