ArticleBMJ open2023
Effect of different visual presentations on the public's comprehension of prognostic information using acute and chronic condition scenarios: two online randomised controlled trials.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of bar graph, pictograph and line graph compared with text-only, and to each other, for communicating prognosis to the public.
designTwo online four-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trials. Statistical significance was set at p<0.016 to allow for three-primary comparisons. PARTICIPANTS AND
settingTwo Australian samples were recruited from members registered at Dynata online survey company. In trial A: 470 participants were randomised to one of the four arms, 417 were included in the analysis. In trial B: 499 were randomised and 433 were analysed.
interventionsIn each trial four visual presentations were tested: bar graph, pictograph, line graph and text-only. Trial A communicated prognostic information about an acute condition (acute otitis media) and trial B about a chronic condition (lateral epicondylitis). Both conditions are typically managed in primary care where 'wait and see' is a legitimate option. MAIN OUTCOME: Comprehension of information (scored 0-6). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Decision intention, presentation satisfaction and preferences.
resultsIn both trials, the mean comprehension score was 3.7 for the text-only group. None of the visual presentations were superior to text-only. In trial A, the adjusted mean difference (MD) compared with text-only was: 0.19 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.55) for bar graph, 0.4 (0.04 to 0.76) for pictograph and 0.06 (-0.32 to 0.44) for line graph. In trial B, the adjusted MD was: 0.1 (-0.27 to 0.47) for bar graph), 0.38 (0.01 to 0.74) for pictograph and 0.1 (-0.27 to 0.48) for line graph. Pairwise comparisons between the three graphs showed all were clinically equivalent (95% CIs between -1.0 and 1.0). In both trials, bar graph was the most preferred presentation (chosen by 32.9% of trial A participants and 35.6% in trial B).
conclusionsAny of the four visual presentations tested may be suitable to use when discussing quantitative prognostic information. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621001305819).
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.