Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36777110›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in digital health2022

The effectiveness of video animations as information tools for patients and the general public: A systematic review.

Thirimon Moe-Byrne, Ella Evans, Nadia Benhebil, Peter Knapp

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors.

Thirimon Moe-ByrneDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Ella EvansHull York Medical School, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Nadia BenhebilHull York Medical School, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Peter KnappDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objectives: Video animations are used increasingly as patient information tools; however, we do not know their value compared to other formats of delivery, such as printed materials, verbal consultations or static images. Methods: This review compares the effectiveness of video animations as information tools vs. other formats of delivery on patient knowledge, attitudes and cognitions, and behaviours. Included studies had the following features: controlled design with random or quasi-random allocation; patients being informed about any health condition or members of the public being informed about a public health topic; comparing video animation with another delivery format. Multiple digital databases were searched from 1996-June 2021. We also undertook citation searching. We used dual, independent decision-making for inclusion assessment, data extraction and quality appraisal. Included studies were appraised using the Cochrane ROB2 tool. Findings were reported using narrative synthesis. Results: We included 38 trials, focussed on: explaining medical or surgical procedures ( Discussion: The overall evidence base is highly variable, with mostly small trials. Video animations show promise as patient information tools, particularly for effects on knowledge, but further evaluation is needed in higher quality studies. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?, identifier: CRD42021236296.

Indexed as

attitudes and cognitionbehaviorsinformation toolsknowledgepatientsvideo animations

Identifiers

PMID36777110
PMCPMC9910310

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.