Question · asked by 1 review

Personalised risk communication vs general risk information: Informed decision ‐ Numerical risk and categorised risk combined MMIC1

Personalised risk communication leads to higher informed decision ‐ Numerical risk and categorised risk combined MMIC1 compared with general risk information (high certainty).

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Personalised risk communication vs general risk information
Informed decision ‐ Numerical risk and categorised risk combined MMIC1 · patients with informed decision making about taking screening tests
Personalised risk communication leads to higher informed decision ‐ Numerical risk and categorised risk combined MMIC1 compared with general risk information (high certainty).
Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests (2013) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 3.65 [2.13, 6.23]3 studies · 2444 participantsHigh

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests
2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
Not reportedlist not extracted yetNot assessed

Studies behind the findings

None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.

How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.