Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41877317›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science2026

Communication of information on benefits and harms of multiple competing medical interventions: three-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

Edoardo G Ostinelli, Orestis Efthimiou, Adeola Agunbiade, Huseyin Naci, Andrea Cipriani

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05917639 (CommunICation of bEnefit Risk Information), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05917639 nacompletednot on this map

CommunICation of bEnefit Risk Information: an Online Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OxfordRan2023 to 2023Enrolled2,178ConditionsKnowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Literacy, Confidence, SelfArmsVitruvian plot, Kilim plot, Summary of findings table
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Edoardo G OstinelliDepartment of Psychiatry, https://ror.org/052gg0110Oxford University, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8717-0832
Orestis EfthimiouInstitute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Adeola AgunbiadeIndependent Scholar.
Huseyin NaciDepartment of Health Policy, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Andrea CiprianiDepartment of Psychiatry, https://ror.org/052gg0110Oxford University, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5179-8321

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformation about a treatment's benefits and harms available to a patient often relies on text. However, for many medical conditions, patients must trade off benefits and harms across multiple competing treatments. It remains unknown how to appropriately communicate information on benefits and harms to patients.

aimsWe compared three communication tools using textual information (Cochrane summary of findings table) or increasing combinations of textual and graphical information (Kilim and Vitruvian plots, respectively) to convey the available evidence.

methodCommunication of Benefit-Risk Information, an online randomised controlled trial, is a three-group, parallel, open-label, automated, randomised controlled trial (no. NCT05917639). We recruited participants aged between 18 and 65 years from the general population. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) to one of the three communication tools providing information on competing fictional treatments for social anxiety, and were asked to choose one based on externally provided preferences. The primary outcome was the perceived level of decisional conflict when selecting a treatment (decisional conflict scale (DCS): 0 = best, 100 = worst). Because this was an all-or-nothing, single-visit trial, only those participants providing data contributed to the primary analyses (modified intention to treat).

resultsWe recruited 2178 adults between 1 June and 27 November 2023. Vitruvian and Kilim plots outperformed the Cochrane summary of findings table on the primary outcome (adjusted mean difference -10.9, 95% CI -13.5 to -8.2,

conclusionsCombining graphical and textual information, as opposed to text only, improved communication and reduced decisional conflict when choosing across multiple competing medical interventions. Organisations involved in disseminating scientific evidence should consider endorsing a combined graphical and textual approach and adopting more intuitive and accessible communication methods. We identified several prognostic factors that should inform the development of future patient decision aids and communication of scientific findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05917639.

Indexed as

communication of benefits and harmsdigital medicinepatient decision aidsprecision medicineShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID41877317
PMCPMC7619484

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.