ArticlePatient education and counseling2026
Modifications to the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) coding scheme: A scoping review.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) is a widely used coding scheme for analyzing communication in clinical encounters. Researchers often modify RIAS to fit the specific aims of their studies, but the process and rationale for modification are unclear. Without a standardized approach to modifications, it is challenging to interpret RIAS findings and benchmark results across studies. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe published RIAS modifications.
methodWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science for empirical studies reporting adaptations of RIAS. A narrative synthesis summarized modifications, including additions, reductions, or combinations of codes.
resultsOf 551 articles identified, 27 met the inclusion criteria. While based on the original 40 mutually exclusive RIAS codes, most studies reported modifications to the coding framework. In total, 159 new codes across modified codebooks. Most newly added codes were task-focused (71%), particularly question-related. Additionally, five studies reduced and combined codes, five combined codes only, and one reduced codes. The main reasons for modification were: scope expansion, study setting, and practical considerations. Most added codes were introduced to adapt the RIAS to specific study settings. In contrast, reduced codes were often implemented for practical considerations. The majority of papers did not document their approach to modification or assessment of the modified tool.
conclusionsShortening RIAS was a common modification, suggesting a need to revisit and streamline the coding system to enhance usability. Inconsistent documentation of modifications challenges the reproducibility and interpretation of results. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Following established research methods and conducting psychometric testing on modified tools is critical to ensure reliability and validity. These practices improve research quality, comparability, and transparency, making findings more robust and applicable across studies.
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.