ArticleJournal of vascular surgery2011
Pilot testing of a decision support tool for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms.
Article in Journal of vascular surgery, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Features of Computer-Based Decision Aids: Systematic Review, Thematic Synthesis, and Meta-Analyses.Journal of medical Internet research · 2016Pooled it
- Review
- Is Evar Feasible in Challenging Aortic Neck Anatomies? A Technical Review and Ethical Discussion.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- The technical landscape for patient-centered CDS: progress, gaps, and challenges.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Abdominal aortic aneurysm in prostate cancer patients: the "road map" from incidental detection to advanced predictive, preventive, and personalized approach utilizing common follow-up for both pathologies.The EPMA journal · 2019Article
- A clinical and ethical review on late results and benefits after EVAR.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePatients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) who are surgical candidates have as many as three options: open surgery, endovascular surgery, or no surgery. As with all treatment decisions, informed patient preferences are critical. Decision support tools have the potential to better inform patients about the risks and benefits associated with each treatment option and to empower patients to participate meaningfully in the decision-making process. The objective of this study was to develop and pilot test a decision support tool for patients with AAAs.
methodsWe developed a personalized, interactive, computer-based decision support tool reflecting the most current outcomes data and input from surgeons and patients. We piloted the tool with AAA repair candidates who used the tool prior to meeting with their surgeon. Patients were recruited from a university-based vascular surgery clinic and affiliated VA hospital clinic. To determine feasibility and acceptability, the following outcomes were measured: (1) percent of patients who agreed to participate, (2) length of time required to use the tool, (3) the amount of assistance required to use the tool, and (4) patients' opinions on the acceptability of the tool. To assess effectiveness of the tool, we measured change in knowledge and decisional conflict pre- and post-tool using the paired t-test.
resultsOne hundred percent of patients who were approached (n = 12) agreed to participate in the study. The tool was administered in a median time of 35 minutes (range, 25-45 minutes), and all patients were able to navigate the program with minor technical assistance. Mean knowledge scores increased from 56% to 90% (P = .005), and decisional conflict scores decreased from 29% to 8% (P = .04). Overall, patients reported that the program content was balanced across treatment options, presented information clearly and concisely, helped them to organize their thoughts about the decision, and prepared them to talk to their surgeon about what mattered most to them.
conclusionsPreliminary evidence suggests that use of an evidence-based AAA decision support tool is feasible and acceptable to patients, increases knowledge, and decreases decisional conflict. Widespread use of such a tool might improve the content and quality of informed consent for this difficult treatment decision.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.