Evidence mapPaperPMID 30419113Full record

Trial reportJAMA cardiology2018

Influence of Cardiovascular Risk Communication Tools and Presentation Formats on Patient Perceptions and Preferences.

Ann Marie Navar, Tracy Y Wang, Xiaojuan Mi, Jennifer G Robinson, Salim S Virani, Veronique L Roger, Peter W F Wilson, Anne C Goldberg, Eric D Peterson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA cardiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
13.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Visualizing machine learning-based predictions of postpartum depression risk for lay audiences.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Ann Marie NavarDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Tracy Y WangDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Xiaojuan MiDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Jennifer G RobinsonUniversity of Iowa, Iowa City.
Salim S ViraniBaylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Veronique L RogerMayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Peter W F WilsonEmory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Anne C GoldbergWashington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Eric D PetersonDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Duke University · USBaylor College of Medicine · USEmory University · USMayo Clinic · USUniversity of Iowa · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL133416
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Practice guidelines recommend that clinicians engage patients in treatment decisions and explain atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk but do not describe how to communicate this risk most effectively. Objective: To determine how the ASCVD risk time horizon, outcome, and presentation format influence risk perceptions and treatment preferences. Design, Setting, and Participants: From May 27, 2015, through November 12, 2015, participants from the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management Registry at 140 US cardiology, primary care, and endocrinology practices were presented 3 independent scenarios (representing the same hypothetical patient) and asked to rate their perceived risk and willingness to take medication to lower risk in light of (1) a 15% 10-year ASCVD event risk, (2) a 4% 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) death risk, and (3) a 50% lifetime ASCVD event risk. Exposures: Participants were randomized to receive risk estimates using numbers only, a bar graph, or a face pictogram. Results: Of 3566 eligible participants, 2708 (76.9%) responded (median age, 67 years [interquartile range, 61-76 years]; 280 [10.3%] African American; 1491 men [55.1%]). When shown the lifetime ASCVD risk, respondents were more likely to consider the risk "high to very high" than when presented the 10-year ASCVD risk or the CVD death risk (70.1% vs 31.4% vs 25.7%, respectively; both P < .001). Treatment willingness was also the highest for lifetime ASCVD risk (77.9% very willing) followed by 10-year ASCVD risk (68.1%) and 10-year CVD death risk (63.1%; both P < .001). Compared with participants who were shown a bar graph or no graphic, those who were shown the risk information with a pictogram had the lowest perception of disease severity and the lowest willingness to consider therapy. These findings were robust across demographic and socioeconomic subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: The format, time horizon, and outcome used for risk estimation influence patient perceptions and should be considered when designing risk communication tools. When shown lifetime risk estimates, patients had higher risk perception and willingness for therapy than when shown 10-year estimates. Pictogram risk displays may decrease risk perception and consideration for treatment.

Indexed as

Patient ComplianceRegistriesRisk AssessmentAgedCardiovascular DiseasesFemaleHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsMaleMiddle AgedRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesSurvival RateUnited StatesHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID30419113
PMCPMC6551302
OpenAlexW2901954346

What Socratic holds

Texttitle and abstract
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.