Trial reportAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Evaluating the Influence of a Risk Calculator on Physician Risk Perception and Decision-Making in IPMN Surveillance: A Randomized Trial.
Trial report in Annals of surgical oncology, 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
Abstract
backgroundRisk calculators (RCs) support clinicians estimating the likelihood that a pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) would progress so that surveillance might be discontinued for low-risk lesions. We tested the effect of an RC on clinicians' judgment and decision-making and identified their cancer risk threshold for changing their decision. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe presented clinicians with three vignettes (V1, V2, and V3) of patients with low-risk IPMNs and asked them to assess the likelihood that the IPMN would progress to develop high-risk features and whether they would recommend continuing surveillance imaging. Clinicians were randomly assigned to the clinical vignettes alone (n = 35) or supplemented by data from the Dutch-American Risk Stratification Tool (DART-1 RC: n = 37). We compared clinicians' judgments and decisions between groups and assessed their cancer risk threshold (level of risk at which recommendation would change).
resultsAcross all vignettes, the RC resulted in no change in clinicians' judged likelihood of IPMN progression (V1 8.49 vs. 8.41%, p = 0.09; V2 4.39 vs. 6.75%, p = 0.99; V3 13.61 vs. 13.29%, p = 0.27) or recommendation to continue surveillance (V1 57 vs. 41%, p = 0.78; V2 41 vs. 59%, p = 0.55; V3 66 vs. 34%, p = 0.31). Clinicians varied in their reported risk threshold (V1 9%, interquartile range [IQR] 2, 13%; V2 9% [IQR 1, 15%], V3 8% [IQR 3, 20%]).
conclusionsAn RC did not significantly influence clinicians' risk perception or decision to continue surveillance, although the study was limited by low sample size. The cancer risk threshold at which clinicians would change their recommendation varies widely. Future work is needed to understand why RCs do not appear to alter decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41649782What 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.