ArticleCancer medicine2024
The Evidence Effect: How Fact Boxes Shift Perceptions of Lung Cancer Screening in Austrian Medical Practice.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundRecent results from the Dutch NELSON study have rekindled debates about the benefit-to-harm ratio of lung cancer screening and the comprehension of this by physicians.
methodsThis research surveyed the perception and understanding of 136 Austrian physicians regarding the advantages and risks of lung cancer screening, examining the impact of educational data visualization tools, including fact box and icon array. Physicians participated in an online survey about their understanding before and after exposure to either a fact box alone or combined with an icon array.
resultsThe findings indicated that the fact box significantly enhanced physicians' grasp of the screening's benefits and harms, making them up to 13 times more likely to adjust their estimates within a predefined range. Notably, the intervention was more effective among physicians who initially did not recommend CT screening. However, the addition of the icon array did not offer significant improvement. Postintervention, physicians showcased better comprehension and an improved ability to offer patient-centered advice, which may bolster adherence to lung cancer screening protocols. OUTLOOK: Despite its insights, the study's cross-sectional nature and the unique cultural context underline the need for more research. Further exploration should focus on different settings and assess the real-world implications on clinical practice and patient outcomes.
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.