Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38707974›Full record

SynthesisThe Ulster medical journal2024

Verbal Probability Terms for Communicating Clinical Risk - a Systematic Review.

M Jawad Hashim

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Ulster medical journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

1 author.

M Jawad HashimCollege of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University Tawam Hospital Campus Al Ain 17666, United Arab Emirates.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Verbal probability expressions such as 'likely' and 'possible' are commonly used to communicate uncertainty in diagnosis, treatment effectiveness as well as the risk of adverse events. Probability terms that are interpreted consistently can be used to standardize risk communication. A systematic review was conducted. Research studies that evaluated numeric meanings of probability terms were reviewed. Terms with consistent numeric interpretation across studies were selected and were used to construct a Visual Risk Scale. Five probability terms showed reliable interpretation by laypersons and healthcare professionals in empirical studies. 'Very Likely' was interpreted as 90% chance (range 80 to 95%); 'Likely/Probable,' 70% (60 to 80%); 'Possible,' 40% (30 to 60%); 'Unlikely,' 20% (10 to 30%); and 'Very Unlikely' with 10% chance (5% to 15%). The corresponding frequency terms were: Very Frequently, Frequently, Often, Infrequently, and Rarely, respectively. Probability terms should be presented with their corresponding numeric ranges during discussions with patients. Numeric values should be presented as X-in-100 natural frequency statements, even for low values; and not as percentages, X-in-1000, X-in-Y, odds, fractions, 1-in-X, or as number needed to treat (NNT). A Visual Risk Scale was developed for use in clinical shared decision making.

Indexed as

CommunicationProbabilityHumansPhysician-Patient RelationsRisk AssessmentUncertaintyclinical reasoningmedical decision-makingprobabilityrisk communication

Identifiers

PMID38707974
PMCPMC11067312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.