ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1996
Patients' prerogatives and perceptions of benefit.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feudal lords of science and medicine.The Western journal of medicine · 2001Article
- Patients' perceptions of omitted examinations and tests: A qualitative analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2000Article
- DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 1999Article
- Development of a patient decision aid for choice of surgical treatment for breast cancer.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 1998Article
- What can patients do to improve health care?Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 1998Article
- Risks and benefits of coronary angioplasty: the patients perspective: a preliminary study.Quality in health care : QHC · 1997Article
- Future prospects for evidence-based child health.Archives of disease in childhood · 1996Review
- Breast cancer: asking patients what they want.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
- N of 1 trials. Placebos should be abandoned.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients today demand more information about their treatment. Doctors, however, seem reluctant to cast aside ingrained habits of paternalism, believing they can best interpret therapeutic choices for their patients. Whether doctors can be more objective and effective than patients in interpreting the "probabilities" of medical evidence is open to question. On the other hand, the exercise of choice by patients may itself have a bearing on the probabilities of outcome. Involving patients more in making therapeutic choices is justified if doctors can present options in an unbiased and effective manner and if the process improves the outcome of the care delivered.
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.