Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38991782›Full record

ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2025

On the use of the term "real risk".

Roger Flage, Terje Aven, Ingrid Glette-Iversen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. On the use of the term "real risk".Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025
    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

3 authors.

Roger FlageFaculty of Science and Technology, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2967-9104
Terje AvenFaculty of Science and Technology, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Ingrid Glette-IversenFaculty of Science and Technology, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The term "real risk" and variations of this term are commonly used in everyday speech and writing, and in the scientific literature. There are mainly two types of use: i) in statements about what the real risk related to an activity is and ii) in statements about the risk related to an activity being real. The former type of use has been extensively discussed in the literature, whereas the latter type has received less attention. In the present study, we review both types of use and analyze and discuss potential meanings of type ii) statements. We conclude that it is reasonable to interpret a statement about the risk being real as reflecting a judgement that there is some risk and that the knowledge supporting this statement is relatively strong. However, such a statement does not convey whether the risk is small or large and needs to be supplemented by a characterization of the risk.

Indexed as

real riskrisk characterizationrisk communicationrisk science

Identifiers

PMID38991782
PMCPMC11735339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.