These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27862121)

  • 21. Understanding the positive effects of graphical risk information on comprehension: measuring attention directed to written, tabular, and graphical risk information.
    Smerecnik CM; Mesters I; Kessels LT; Ruiter RA; De Vries NK; De Vries H
    Risk Anal; 2010 Sep; 30(9):1387-98. PubMed ID: 20561265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Transparency in risk communication: graphical and analog tools.
    Kurz-Milcke E; Gigerenzer G; Martignon L
    Ann N Y Acad Sci; 2008 Apr; 1128():18-28. PubMed ID: 18469211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Identifying patient preferences for communicating risk estimates: a descriptive pilot study.
    Fortin JM; Hirota LK; Bond BE; O'Connor AM; Col NF
    BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2001; 1():2. PubMed ID: 11545684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Presenting health risk information in different formats: the effect on participants' cognitive and emotional evaluation and decisions.
    Timmermans DR; Ockhuysen-Vermey CF; Henneman L
    Patient Educ Couns; 2008 Dec; 73(3):443-7. PubMed ID: 18722073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The impact of numeracy on reactions to different graphic risk presentation formats: An experimental analogue study.
    Wright AJ; Whitwell SC; Takeichi C; Hankins M; Marteau TM
    Br J Health Psychol; 2009 Feb; 14(Pt 1):107-25. PubMed ID: 18442447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Different formats for communicating surgical risks to patients and the effect on choice of treatment.
    Timmermans D; Molewijk B; Stiggelbout A; Kievit J
    Patient Educ Couns; 2004 Sep; 54(3):255-63. PubMed ID: 15324976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Presenting risk information to people with diabetes: evaluating effects and preferences for different formats by a web-based randomised controlled trial.
    Edwards A; Thomas R; Williams R; Ellner AL; Brown P; Elwyn G
    Patient Educ Couns; 2006 Nov; 63(3):336-49. PubMed ID: 16860964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Revisiting the Open Sampling format: Improving risky choices through a novel graphical representation.
    Tiede KE; Henninger F; Kieslich PJ
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2022 Apr; 29(2):648-659. PubMed ID: 34731442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Bar graphs depicting averages are perceptually misinterpreted: the within-the-bar bias.
    Newman GE; Scholl BJ
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2012 Aug; 19(4):601-7. PubMed ID: 22648655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. An evaluation of a "time tunnel" display format for the presentation of temporal information.
    Bennett KB; Payne M; Walters B
    Hum Factors; 2005; 47(2):342-59. PubMed ID: 16170943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Communicating Uncertainties About the Effects of Medical Interventions Using Different Display Formats.
    McDowell M; Kause A
    Risk Anal; 2021 Dec; 41(12):2220-2239. PubMed ID: 34109678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The influence of different graphical displays on nonexpert decision making under uncertainty.
    Padilla LM; Hansen G; Ruginski IT; Kramer HS; Thompson WB; Creem-Regehr SH
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2015 Mar; 21(1):37-46. PubMed ID: 25437794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Data display format and hospital ward reports: effects of different presentations on data interpretation.
    Agostinelli A; Specchia ML; Liguori G; Parlato A; Siliquini R; Nante N; Di Thiene D; Ricciardi W; Boccia A; La Torre G
    Eur J Public Health; 2013 Feb; 23(1):82-6. PubMed ID: 22434208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks.
    Jardine C; Hrudey S; Shortreed J; Craig L; Krewski D; Furgal C; McColl S
    J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev; 2003; 6(6):569-720. PubMed ID: 14698953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Communicating Relative Risk Changes with Baseline Risk: Presentation Format and Numeracy Matter.
    Bodemer N; Meder B; Gigerenzer G
    Med Decis Making; 2014 Jul; 34(5):615-26. PubMed ID: 24803429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Graphical displays of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) for use in clinical practice: What makes a pro picture worth a thousand words?
    Bantug ET; Coles T; Smith KC; Snyder CF; Rouette J; Brundage MD;
    Patient Educ Couns; 2016 Apr; 99(4):483-490. PubMed ID: 26603445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Graphical assessment of incremental value of novel markers in prediction models: From statistical to decision analytical perspectives.
    Steyerberg EW; Vedder MM; Leening MJ; Postmus D; D'Agostino RB; Van Calster B; Pencina MJ
    Biom J; 2015 Jul; 57(4):556-70. PubMed ID: 25042996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The greater ability of graphical versus numerical displays to increase risk avoidance involves a common mechanism.
    Schirillo JA; Stone ER
    Risk Anal; 2005 Jun; 25(3):555-66. PubMed ID: 16022690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Communicating quality of life information to cancer patients: a study of six presentation formats.
    Brundage M; Feldman-Stewart D; Leis A; Bezjak A; Degner L; Velji K; Zetes-Zanatta L; Tu D; Ritvo P; Pater J
    J Clin Oncol; 2005 Oct; 23(28):6949-56. PubMed ID: 16192583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Communicating Numerical Risk: Human Factors That Aid Understanding in Health Care.
    Brust-Renck PG; Royer CE; Reyna VF
    Rev Hum Factors Ergon; 2013 Oct; 8(1):235-276. PubMed ID: 24999307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.