Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36452315›Full record

ArticleMDM policy & practice

Measuring the Impact of Quantitative Information on Patient Understanding: Approaches for Assessing the Adequacy of Patient Knowledge about Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Joshua B Rager, Sandra Althouse, Susan M Perkins, Karen K Schmidt, Peter H Schwartz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MDM policy & practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 74% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Personalizing cancer risk: a systematic review of risk communication strategies.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Joshua B RagerVeterans Affairs HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation, & Policy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9557-5672
Sandra AlthouseDepartment of Biostatistics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, USA.
Susan M PerkinsDepartment of Biostatistics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, USA.
Karen K SchmidtDepartment of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, USA.
Peter H SchwartzIndiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0863-0931
Indiana University Health · USIndiana University School of MedicineUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Highlights: Patients who viewed quantitative information in a decision aid about colorectal cancer screening were more knowledgeable about nonquantitative information and were more likely to have adequate knowledge according to a variety of approaches for assessing that, compared with individuals who viewed only qualitative information. This result supports the inclusion of quantitative information in decision aids.Researchers assessing patient understanding should consider a variety of ways to define adequate knowledge when assessing decision quality.

Indexed as

colorectal cancer screeningdecision aidsdecision qualitypatient knowledge

Identifiers

PMID36452315
PMCPMC9703495
OpenAlexW4310593695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.