SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2024
Enhancing Patient Understanding of Laboratory Test Results: Systematic Review of Presentation Formats and Their Impact on Perception, Decision, Action, and Memory.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patient Experiences With Online Laboratory Test Presentations From Access to Activation: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- The impact of different radiology report formats on patient information processing: a systematic review.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative Analysis of Expert, Clinician, and Health Care User Interactions With Summary of Findings Tables: Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Designing Emotion-Integrated Visualizations for Kidney Function Self-Management: User-Centered Design Study With Youth Transplant Recipients and Caregivers.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Patient-Reported Experiences With Viewing and Understanding Test Results in Patient Portals: Cross-Sectional Survey Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Integrated Radiology-Biochemistry Diagnostic Flow Framework for Emergency Clinical Decision Support: A Simulation-Based Educational Model.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- Impact of Laboratory Data Integration into Outpatient Prescriptions on Community Pharmacist Feedback and Physician Responses: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
- Making non-emergent abnormal results actionable: a short-term longitudinal qualitative study in two hospital-affiliated health examination centers in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Balancing efficiency and misinterpretation: general practitioners' perspectives on communicating diagnostic test results in the digital era.Family practice · 2025Article
- Patient-Friendly Test Results and Patient-Initiated Messaging Among Adult Outpatients.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Perceptions, Experiences, and Beliefs About Patient Portals Among Women With Limited English Proficiency: Multicultural Qualitative Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Patients' experiences and practices of medication literacy in inflammatory bowel disease: a qualitative study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Molecular monitoring in CML-a modern example of an old proverb.Blood cancer journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDirect access of patients to their web-based patient portal, including laboratory test results, has become increasingly common. Numeric laboratory results can be challenging to interpret for patients, which may lead to anxiety, confusion, and unnecessary doctor consultations. Laboratory results can be presented in different formats, but there is limited evidence regarding how these presentation formats impact patients' processing of the information.
objectiveThis study aims to synthesize the evidence on effective formats for presenting numeric laboratory test results with a focus on outcomes related to patients' information processing, including affective perception, perceived magnitude, cognitive perception, perception of communication, decision, action, and memory.
methodsThe search was conducted in 3 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase) from inception until May 31, 2023. We included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods articles describing or comparing formats for presenting diagnostic laboratory test results to patients. Two reviewers independently extracted and synthesized the characteristics of the articles and presentation formats used. The quality of the included articles was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
resultsA total of 18 studies were included, which were heterogeneous in terms of study design and primary outcomes used. The quality of the articles ranged from poor to excellent. Most studies (n=16, 89%) used mock test results. The most frequently used presentation formats were numerical values with reference ranges (n=12), horizontal line bars with colored blocks (n=12), or a combination of horizontal line bars with numerical values (n=8). All studies examined perception as an outcome, while action and memory were studied in 1 and 3 articles, respectively. In general, participants' satisfaction and usability were the highest when test results were presented using horizontal line bars with colored blocks. Adding reference ranges or personalized information (eg, goal ranges) further increased participants' perception. Additionally, horizontal line bars significantly decreased participants' tendency to search for information or to contact their physician, compared with numerical values with reference ranges.
conclusionsIn this review, we synthesized available evidence on effective presentation formats for laboratory test results. The use of horizontal line bars with reference ranges or personalized goal ranges increased participants' cognitive perception and perception of communication while decreasing participants' tendency to contact their physicians. Action and memory were less frequently studied, so no conclusion could be drawn about a single preferred format regarding these outcomes. Therefore, the use of horizontal line bars with reference ranges or personalized goal ranges is recommended to enhance patients' information processing of laboratory test results. Further research should focus on real-life settings and diverse presentation formats in combination with outcomes related to patients' information processing.
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.