Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37285320›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Bayesian versus diagnostic information in physician-patient communication: Effects of direction of statistical information and presentation of visualization.

Sarah Frederike Brose, Karin Binder, Martin R Fischer, Martin Reincke, Leah T Braun, Ralf Schmidmaier

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. 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
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Communicating blood test results in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah Frederike BroseDepartment of Internal Medicine IV, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5532-6839
Karin BinderInstitute of Mathematics, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Martin R FischerInstitute of Medical Education, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Martin ReinckeDepartment of Internal Medicine IV, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Leah T BraunDepartment of Internal Medicine IV, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ralf SchmidmaierDepartment of Internal Medicine IV, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
LMU Klinikum · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunicating well with patients is a competence central to everyday clinical practice, and communicating statistical information, especially in Bayesian reasoning tasks, can be challenging. In Bayesian reasoning tasks, information can be communicated in two different ways (which we call directions of information): The direction of Bayesian information (e.g., proportion of people tested positive among those with the disease) and the direction of diagnostic information (e.g., the proportion of people having the disease among those tested positive). The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of both the direction of the information presented and whether a visualization (frequency net) is presented with it on patient's ability to quantify a positive predictive value. MATERIAL AND

methods109 participants completed four different medical cases (2⨯2⨯4 design) that were presented in a video; a physician communicated frequencies using different directions of information (Bayesian information vs. diagnostic information). In half of the cases for each direction, participants were given a frequency net. After watching the video, participants stated a positive predictive value. Accuracy and speed of response were analyzed.

resultsCommunicating with Bayesian information led to participant performance of only 10% (without frequency net) and 37% (with frequency net) accuracy. The tasks communicated with diagnostic information but without a frequency net were correctly solved by 72% of participants, but accuracy rate decreased to 61% when participants were given a frequency net. Participants with correct responses in the Bayesian information version without visualization took longest to complete the tasks (median of 106 seconds; median of 13.5, 14.0, and 14.5 seconds in other versions). DISCUSSION: Communicating with diagnostic information rather than Bayesian information helps patients to understand specific information better and more quickly. Patients' understanding of the relevance of test results is strongly dependent on the way the information is presented.

Indexed as

Physician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansBayes TheoremCommunicationHumansProblem Solving

Identifiers

PMID37285320
PMCPMC10246784
OpenAlexW4379741462

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.