ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Value Attribution in the Decision to Use of Whole Body MRI for Early Cancer Diagnosis.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to identify the main factors that asymptomatic individuals considered when deciding to undergo self-referred Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) for early cancer diagnosis and the subjective values attributed to each mentioned factor in a Decision tree analysis. Personal characteristics such as risk perception and personality were investigated as possible factors affecting value attribution. Seventy-four volunteers (mean age 56.4; male = 47) filled a simplified decision tree by expressing the expected factors and related subjective values associated with two screening options for early cancer diagnosis (standard procedures vs. WB-MRI+standard procedures) while waiting for a WB-MRI examination. Questionnaires on risk perception and personality traits were also administered. Expected factors were summarized in 5 clusters: diagnostic certainty, psychological well-being, safety, test validity and time/cost. Test validity and time/cost were evaluated as potential losses in both procedures. Diagnostic Certainty and safety were evaluated as losses in standard screening, and as an advantage when considering WB-MRI+standard screening. Forty-five percent of participants considered WB-MRI+standard screening as beneficial for their psychological well-being. Finally, personal absolute and comparative risk to get cancer was associated with a positive value attribution to WB-MRI (
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.