Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36209196›Full record

Trial reportCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2022

Humor in radiological breast cancer screening: a way of improving patient service?

Elisabeth Sartoretti, Thomas Sartoretti, Dow Mu Koh, Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer, Sebastian Kos, Romana Goette, Ricardo Donners, Robyn Benz, Johannes M Froehlich, Simon Matoori and 8 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

18 authors.

Elisabeth SartorettiFaculty of Medicine, University of Zürich, Pestalozzistrasse 3, 8032, Zürich, Switzerland.
Thomas SartorettiFaculty of Medicine, University of Zürich, Pestalozzistrasse 3, 8032, Zürich, Switzerland.
Dow Mu KohCancer Research UK Clinical Magnetic Resonance Research Group, Institute of Cancer Research, Downs Road, Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UK.
Sabine Sartoretti-ScheferDepartment of Radiology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur, Brauerstrasse 15, 8401, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Sebastian KosInstitute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine and Breast Center St. Anna, Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, St. Anna- Strasse 32, 6006, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Romana GoetteInstitute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine and Breast Center St. Anna, Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, St. Anna- Strasse 32, 6006, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Ricardo DonnersDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Süotaöstrasse 21/ Petersgraben 4, 4031, Basel, Switzerland.
Robyn BenzDepartment of Diagnostic, Interventional and Pediatric Radiology, Inselspital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 10, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Johannes M FroehlichClinical Research Group, Klus Apotheke Zürich, Hegibachstrasse 102, 8032, Zürich, Switzerland.
Simon MatooriFaculté de Pharmacie, Université de Montréal, Pavillon Jean- Coutu 2940, chemin de Polythechnique, Montréal, Québec, H3T 1J4, Canada.
Peter DubskyBreast Center, Hirslanden Clinic St Anna, St. Anna- Strasse 32, 6006, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Tino PlümeckeInstitute of Sociology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Rosemarie ForstnerDepartment of Radiology, Paracelsus Medical University, Müllner- Hauptstrasse 48, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Willibald RuchDepartment of Psychology, University of Zurich, Binzmühlestrasse 14, Box 1, 8050, Zurich, Switzerland.
Matthias MeissnitzerDepartment of Radiology, Paracelsus Medical University, Müllner- Hauptstrasse 48, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Klaus HerganDepartment of Radiology, Paracelsus Medical University, Müllner- Hauptstrasse 48, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Selina Largiader *Faculty of Medicine, University of Zürich, Pestalozzistrasse 3, 8032, Zürich, Switzerland.
Andreas Gutzeit *Department of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, Frohburgstrasse 3, Postfach 4466, 6002, Luzern, Switzerland. agutzeit2000@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer screening is essential in detecting breast tumors, however, the examination is stressful. In this study we analyzed whether humor enhances patient satisfaction.

methodsIn this prospective randomized study 226 patients undergoing routine breast cancer screening at a single center during October 2020 to July 2021 were included. One hundred thirty-two were eligible for the study. Group 1 (66 patients) received an examination with humorous intervention, group 2 (66 patients) had a standard breast examination. In the humor group, the regular business card was replaced by a self-painted, humorous business card, which was handed to the patient at the beginning of the examination. Afterwards, patients were interviewed with a standardized questionnaire. Scores between the two study groups were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test or Fisher's exact test. P-values were adjusted with the Holm's method. Two-sided p-values < 0.05 were considered significant.

resultsOne hundred thirty-two patients, 131 female and 1 male, (mean age 59 ± 10.6 years) remained in the final study cohort. Patients in the humor group remembered the radiologist's name better (85%/30%, P < .001), appreciated the final discussion with the radiologist more (4.67 ± 0.73-5;[5, 5] vs. 4.24 ± 1.1-5;[4, 5], P = .017), felt the radiologist was more empathetic (4.94 ± 0.24-5;[5, 5] vs.4.59 ± 0.64-5;[4, 5], P < .001), and rated him as a humorous doctor (4.91 ± 0.29-5;[5, 5] vs. 2.26 ± 1.43-1;[1, 4], P < .001). Additionally, patients in the humor group tended to experience less anxiety (p = 0.166) and felt the doctor was more competent (p = 0.094).

conclusionHumor during routine breast examinations may improve patient-radiologist relationship because the radiologist is considered more empathetic and competent, patients recall the radiologist's name more easily, and value the final discussion more.

trial registrationWe have a general approval from our ethics committee because it is a retrospective survey, the patient lists for the doctors were anonymized and it is a qualitative study, since the clinical processes are part of the daily routine examinations and are used independently of the study. The patients have given their consent to this study and survey.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerAgedFemaleHumansMaleMammographyMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesHumorMammographyPsychology

Identifiers

PMID36209196
PMCPMC9548186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.