ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2025
Comparing Traditional and Graphical Risk Matrices: A Case Study in Healthcare.
Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 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.
- Comparing Traditional and Graphical Risk Matrices: A Case Study in Healthcare.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk and opportunity assessments are essential for decision-making in complex systems such as healthcare and critical infrastructure. However, widely used tools like the risk matrix fail to explicitly capture uncertainty. This study presents the first empirical comparison between a traditional risk matrix and a previously proposed graphical method that visualizes uncertainty using two-dimensional intervals. In a comprehensive survey, healthcare professionals assessed identical scenarios using both methods. The graphical approach yielded systematically different results, particularly in the estimation of probabilities, and revealed differences across occupational groups and infrastructure experience. These findings suggest that explicitly representing uncertainty may enhance the transparency and nuance of qualitative risk assessments, potentially addressing key limitations of conventional tools. Such approaches could support more reflective and differentiated decision-making in high-stakes environments.
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.