Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21656094›Full record

ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2011

[Patient centeredness and decision-making in localised prostate cancer: possible fields of health services research in urology].

J Huber, A Ihrig, C G Huber, B Hadaschik, S Pahernik, M Hohenfellner

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
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

6 authors.

J HuberUrologische Universitätsklinik Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120 Heidelberg, Deutschland. johannes.huber@med.uni-heidelberg.de
A Ihrig
C G Huber
B Hadaschik
S Pahernik
M Hohenfellner

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality of care is essential for health services research. Therefore, our patients' preferences are of major importance and this can be illustrated by decision-making in localised prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND

methodsA total of 349 patients reported on their preferred mode of decision-making, on their habits of information procurement, and on their feeling of being well informed. Moreover, we tried to objectify their actual knowledge. Their mean age was 63.0 years and mean PSA level 9.4 ng/ml. As 40% had a higher level of education we investigated possible influences of this feature by applying the chi-square test.

resultsHalf of the patients preferred to share the treatment decision and 39% wanted to choose for themselves considering their physician's recommendation. The most important sources of information were treating physicians (88%) and the Internet (77%). All patients felt well informed and 94% knew their latest PSA count. Patients with a higher level of education had better knowledge of their clinical data and used the Internet more (84 vs 71%; p=0.007).

conclusionsOur patients actively take part in medical decision-making and thereby contribute significantly to everyday health care. Based on this aspect, the whole scope of urology is developed as a promising field of health services research.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchPatient-Centered CarePatient ParticipationAgedBiomarkers, TumorData CollectionEducational StatusFemaleGermanyHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInformation Seeking BehaviorInformed ConsentMaleMiddle AgedProstate-Specific AntigenBiomarkers, TumorProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

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.