ArticleEndocrine journal2026
Effects of explaining the merits and demerits of thyroid ultrasound examination on participation intention among adolescents after the Fukushima nuclear 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 the present study was to investigate how the intention to participate in thyroid ultrasound examination (TUE) changed after reading an explanation of its merits and demerits among adolescents in Fukushima Prefecture following the nuclear disaster in a cross-sectional questionnaire study with a pre-post design. The study was conducted among adolescents eligible for TUE. In the pre-survey, data were collected on participants' background characteristics, history of TUE participation, willingness to participate in TUE, and prior knowledge of the merits and demerits of TUE. Next, participants were provided with a written explanation of the merits and demerits of TUE. Following this, they were surveyed again regarding the understandability of the explanation and their willingness to participate in TUE after reading it. The primary outcome was the change in intention to participate in TUE between the pre- and post-surveys. The overall proportion of willingness to participate in TUE did not change dramatically after reading the explanation. However, 77.8% (367/472) of participants in the group that already knew the merits and demerits did not change their intention to participate in TUE, whereas only 70.5% (537/762) in the previously unaware group did not change their intention. The highest proportion of change was observed among those who initially responded as "undecided" regarding participation in TUE. Providing information on the merits and demerits of TUE was especially important for undecided individuals, as this group showed the greatest change in intention following the explanation.
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.