Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17485750›Full record

ArticleHealth affairs (Project Hope)

Informed patient choice: patient-centered valuing of surgical risks and benefits.

James N Weinstein, Kate Clay, Tamara S Morgan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health affairs (Project Hope). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Values elicitation among surgical oncologists: Findings from an international survey.European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

James N WeinsteinDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Dartmouth Medical School, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA. james.n.weinstein@dartmouth.edu
Kate Clay
Tamara S Morgan

Funding

Prognostic Value of Lumbar Spine MRIP60AR048094 · NIAMS · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI TOSTESON, TOR D. · 2003 to 2007
$6.2M
NIAMS NIH HHS P60 AR048094NIAMS NIH HHS P60-AR048094
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The risks and benefits of any health care intervention are valued differently by stakeholders. One of the ethical imperatives of patient-centered care is the balanced, evidence-based presentation of risks and benefits by providers to patients. Using the example of musculoskeletal surgery with devices, we advocate the use of shared decision-making tools and processes known to improve knowledge, adjust unrealistic expectations, and elicit values about benefits desired and the degree of acceptable risks for individual patients. We describe feasibility and efficacy within our organization and address ways to foster the further adoption of this approach.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesInformed ConsentAttitude of Health PersonnelDecision MakingHumansNew HampshireOrganizational Case StudiesOrthopedic ProceduresPatient-Centered CarePatient Participation

Identifiers

PMID17485750
PMCPMC2918374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.