ArticlePEC innovation2022
Investigating the presentation of uncertainty in an icon array: A randomized trial.
Article in PEC innovation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Icon arrays reduce concern over COVID-19 vaccine side effects: a randomized control study.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2022Trial
- Enhancing risk and crisis communication with computational methods: A systematic literature review.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
- Prospective Analysis of Arteriovenous Fistula Performance in the Context of Competing Risks.Kidney360 · 2025Article
- Article
- Person-based co-design of a decision aid template for people with a genetic predisposition to cancer.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
- The development and evaluation of educational resources for young women with neurofibromatosis type 1 undergoing breast cancer surveillance.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinicians are often advised to use pictographs to communicate risk, but whether they offer benefits when communicating risk imprecision (e.g., 65%-79%) is unknown. Purpose: To test whether any of three approaches to visualizing imprecision would more effectively communicate breast and ovarian cancer risk for Methods: 1,300 UK residents were presented with a genetic report with information about Results: There was no effect of format. Participants shown pictographs vs. text alone had better uptake of breast cancer risk messages ( Conclusions: We found weak evidence in favor of using simple pictographs with ranges to communicate Innovation: Testing different ways of communicating imprecision within pictographs is a novel and promising line of research.
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.