ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2017
Physicians' perception of alternative displays of clinical research evidence for clinical decision support - A study with case vignettes.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Research Informatics: a Decade-in-Review.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024Review
- Interactive Visual Displays for Interpreting the Results of Clinical Trials: Formative Evaluation With Case Vignettes.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
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
objectiveTo design alternate information displays that present summaries of clinical trial results to clinicians to support decision-making; and to compare the displays according to efficacy and acceptability.
methodsA 6-between (information display presentation order) by 3-within (display type) factorial design. Two alternate displays were designed based on Information Foraging theory: a narrative summary that reduces the content to a few sentences; and a table format that structures the display according to the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) framework. The designs were compared with the summary display format available in PubMed. Physicians were asked to review five clinical studies retrieved for a case vignette; and were presented with the three display formats. Participants were asked to rate their experience with each of the information displays according to a Likert scale questionnaire.
resultsTwenty physicians completed the study. Overall, participants rated the table display more highly than either the text summary or PubMed's summary format (5.9vs. 5.4vs. 3.9 on a scale between 1 [strongly disagree] and 7 [strongly agree]). Usefulness ratings of seven pieces of information, i.e. patient population, patient age range, sample size, study arm, primary outcome, results of primary outcome, and conclusion, were high (average across all items=4.71 on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1=not at all useful and 5=very useful). Study arm, primary outcome, and conclusion scored the highest (4.9, 4.85, and 4.85 respectively). Participants suggested additional details such as rate of adverse effects.
conclusionThe table format reduced physicians' perceived cognitive effort when quickly reviewing clinical trial information and was more favorably received by physicians than the narrative summary or PubMed's summary format display.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.