Trial reportBMJ open ophthalmology2024
Risk communication in cataract surgery.
Trial report in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deciphering the Data: Health Numeracy and Its Impact on Decision-Making in Breast Augmentation.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Choroidal melanoma patient views on the importance of treatment characteristics and outcomes, and physicians' information provision in the Netherlands.Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRisk communication is an integral aspect of shared decision-making and evidence-based patient choice. There is currently no recommended way of communicating risks and benefits of cataract surgery to patients. This study aims to investigate whether the way this information is presented influences patients' perception of how risky surgery will be. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two-arm parallel randomised study and patients referred for cataract surgery were assigned to receive information framed either positively (99% chance of no adverse effects) or negatively (1% chance of adverse effects). Subsequently, patients rated their perceived risk of experiencing surgical side effects on a 1-6 scale.
resultsThis study included 100 patients, 50 in each study group. Median (IQR) risk perception was 2 (1-2) in the positive framing group and 3 (1-3) in the negative framing group (p<0.0001). Risk framing was the only factor that was significant in risk perception, with no differences found by other patient clinical or demographic characteristics.
conclusionPatients who received positive framing reported lower risk scores for cataract surgery than patients who received negative framing. Patient factors were not identified as significant determinants in patients' perceived risk. Larger longitudinal studies are warranted to further investigate.
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.