Trial reportBMC primary care2025
Communicating certainty via verbal probability phrases: comparing health contexts with no context.
Trial report in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bridging numerical and verbal probabilities: Construction and application of the Chinese Lexicon of Verbal Probability.Behavior research methods · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMedical professionals often use verbal phrases to communicate uncertainties and certainties with their patients and the general public.
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate factors that can influence people's interpretation of probability phrases of certainty and uncertainty communicated by doctors in health and medical settings.
methodsAn experimental study with a randomized factorial design was conducted to examine both context-related factors and individual difference factors on participants' interpretation across directions of phrases and frames of the context.
resultsContext significantly influenced participants' interpretation of probability phrases regardless of their level of certainty. Participants' self-reported prior beliefs were the main driver of this context effect. When participants were in a state of uncertainty, their reliance on experts significantly reduced the prior beliefs' effect. Finally, refuting probability phrases might provide more reassurance than affirming phrases.
conclusionPeople may perceive the outcomes communicated by doctors differently from what the doctors intend to convey, depending on their prior beliefs, reliance on doctors and the direction of phrases. When communicating uncertainties and certainties with patients and general public, it is important for medical professionals to understand audience's prior experiences, and to foster medical trust and audience's reliance on medical professionals to reduce bias in clinical risk communication.
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.