ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2024
Anecdotes impact medical decisions even when presented with statistical information or decision aids.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of Anecdotes of IVF Success on Treatment Decision Making: An Online Randomized Controlled Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Trial
- Mapping colorectal cancer screening workflows in primary care.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Comprehensibility of Fact Sheets Addressing Benefits and Risks of Preventive Interventions: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation Study.MDM policy & practiceArticle
- The Role of Information Visualisation and Anecdotal Evidence in Medical Students' Clinical Reasoning Process: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People are inundated with popular press reports about medical research concerning what is healthy, get advice from doctors, and hear personal anecdotes. How do people integrate conflicting anecdotal and statistical information when making medical decisions? In four experiments (N = 4126), we tested how people use conflicting information to judge the efficacy of artificial and real medical treatments. Participants read an anecdote from someone in a clinical trial, or who had undergone a medical treatment previously, for whom the medical treatment was ineffective. We found that reading anecdotes for either artificial or real medical treatments shifted participants' beliefs about the efficacy of a medical treatment. We observed this result even when the anecdote was uninformative, was paired with an icon array, or when participants were provided with thorough medical decision aids about reproductive health procedures. Our findings highlight the pervasive effect of anecdotes on medical decision making.
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.