Trial reportJournal of medical ethics2025
To what extent should doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty with their patients? An empirical ethics vignette study.
Trial report in Journal of medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- What potential cancer symptoms should we consider 'unexplained'?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- In Defence of Causing Patients to Worry: Ethical Issues in the Communication of Diagnostic Uncertainty.Bioethics · 2025Article
- Identifying Facilitators and Inhibitors of Shared Understanding: An Ethnography of Diagnosis Communication in Acute Medical Settings.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsAlthough diagnostic uncertainty is common, patient-focused research examining its communication is lacking. We aimed to determine patient preferences for the communication of diagnostic uncertainty, and examine the effects of such communication on patients.
methodsWe applied an empirical ethics approach, integrating the data collected with ethical analysis to form normative recommendations about diagnostic uncertainty communication. In this randomised crossover study, n=111 members of the public sequentially watched two video vignettes depicting either high or low communicated diagnostic uncertainty, in one of two clinical scenarios. After watching videos, participants completed online questionnaires. Primary outcome was preferred video (high vs low communicated uncertainty); secondary outcomes included satisfaction, trust, worry and understanding. Quantitative data were analysed using logistic regression and a linear mixed effects model; qualitative data were analysed thematically.
resultsQuantitative analysis demonstrated that participants preferred greater diagnostic uncertainty communication, even though these vignettes were more worrying. Qualitative data revealed heterogeneous participant views justifying their communication preferences. These data raise issues relating to how doctors might balance harms versus benefits in diagnostic uncertainty communication and how doctors might communicate in the face of heterogeneous patient information preferences.
conclusionsWe argue that doctors should err on the side of greater diagnostic uncertainty communication: to not do so (eg, based on benign paternalistic ideas about avoiding patient worry) or to do so variably (eg, based on unevidenced assumptions about patient information preferences) risks depriving patients of information they may value and may create or exacerbate inequalities.
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.