Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18373146›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2008

Informing men about prostate cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial of patient education materials.

Dragan Ilic, Kristine Egberts, Joanne E McKenzie, Gail Risbridger, Sally Green

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Web-based decision aids for cancer clinical decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. A randomized trial of a computer-tailored decision aid to improve prostate cancer screening decisions: results from the Take the Wheel trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2010
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Review
  15. Decreasing the Impact of Anxiety on Cancer Prevention through Online Intervention.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?CA: a cancer journal for clinicians · 2013
    Review
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

5 authors.

Dragan IlicMonash Institute of Health Services Research, Monash University, Clayton, Australia. dragan.ilic@med.monash.edu.au
Kristine Egberts
Joanne E McKenzie
Gail Risbridger
Sally Green

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient education materials can assist patient decision making on prostate cancer screening.

objectiveTo explore the effectiveness of presenting health information on prostate cancer screening using video, internet, and written interventions on patient decision making, attitudes, knowledge, and screening interest.

designRandomized controlled trial.

participantsA total of 161 men aged over 45, who had never been screened for prostate cancer, were randomized to receive information on prostate cancer screening. MEASUREMENTS: Participants were assessed at baseline and 1-week postintervention for decisional conflict, screening interest, knowledge, anxiety, and decision-making preference.

resultsA total of 156 men were followed-up at 1-week postintervention. There was no statistical, or clinical, difference in mean change in decisional conflict scores between the 3 intervention groups (video vs internet -0.06 [95% CI -0.24 to 0.12]; video vs pamphlet 0.04 [95%CI -0.15 to 0.22]; internet vs pamphlet 0.10 [95%CI -0.09 to 0.28]). There was also no statistically significant difference in mean knowledge, anxiety, decision-making preference, and screening interest between the 3 intervention groups.

conclusionResults from this study indicate that there are no clinically significant differences in decisional conflict when men are presented health information on prostate cancer screening via video, written materials, or the internet. Given the equivalence of the 3 methods, other factors need to be considered in deciding which method to use. Health professionals should provide patient health education materials via a method that is most convenient to the patient and their preferred learning style.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPatient ComplianceHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInternetMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPamphletsPatient Education as TopicPatient ParticipationProstatic NeoplasmsVideo Recording

Identifiers

PMID18373146
PMCPMC2359522

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.