ArticleEndocrine journal2026
Effects of explanatory information on parental intentions regarding child participation in thyroid ultrasound examinations after the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident: a questionnaire survey.
Article in Endocrine journal, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to clarify how parental willingness to allow child participation in thyroid ultrasound examinations (TUE) changed after reading about the merits and demerits of TUE. This study was a cross-sectional questionnaire survey. A total of 2,200 parents and guardians, who had children <18 years old, were included in the final analysis. First, basic characteristics of parental participants and willingness to allow child participation in TUE were assessed (pre-survey). Second, parental participants read an explanation about the merits and demerits of TUE. Third, the understandability of the explanation and intention regarding child participation in TUE were assessed (post-survey). The primary outcome was the change in willingness for child participation in TUE after reading the explanation about the merits and demerits. After reading the explanation, the number of parents in both the "yes" and "no" groups decreased, while the numbers in the "up to the child" and "undecidable" groups increased. This trend was especially prominent among parental participants who were previously unaware of the merits and demerits. Among those who changed their willingness from "yes" to "up to the child" or "undecidable," the proportion was higher in the group that had not known about the merits and demerits than the group that had known (odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.76 (1.32-2.34) and 2.97 (1.87-4.71), respectively). Repeated dissemination of information about the merits and demerits of TUE is necessary to support appropriate 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.