Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23250540›Full record

ReviewJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2013

Incorporating the patient perspective: a critical review of clinical practice guidelines for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy.

Kerry E Joyce, Stephen Lord, Daniel D Matlock, Janet M McComb, Richard Thomson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Communicating risk using absolute risk reduction or prolongation of life formats: cluster-randomised trial in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014
    Trial
  4. How to identify, incorporate and report patient preferences in clinical guidelines: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Introduction: health policy II. A new era of heath policy in electrophysiology and cardiology.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2016
    Article
  7. 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.

Kerry E JoyceInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK. kerry.joyce@ncl.ac.uk
Stephen Lord
Daniel D Matlock
Janet M McComb
Richard Thomson

Funding

Implanted Defibrillators and Older Adults: A Model of Decisions and TechnologiesK23AG040696 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI MATLOCK, DANIEL D · 2011 to 2015
$716k
Department of Health 11/2004/29Department of Health PB-PG-1207-14160NIA NIH HHS K23 AG040696
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeImplantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are recommended for patients with heart failure and/or ventricular arrhythmias at risk of sudden cardiac death. Guidelines for ICD implantation are derived from robust clinical data. However, critical factors which might influence treatment decisions include patient preferences. We set out to determine how clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) incorporate the patient perspective into supporting decision making about ICDs.

methodsCPGs on ICD implantation were purposively selected from national and professional bodies in Europe, North America and Australasia. CPGs were then appraised according to three key domains of shared decision making: (a) informing patients about the risks, benefits and consequences known to be important to patients; (b) personalising risks and benefits and (c) involvement of patient (plus family/significant others if desired) in decision making.

resultsAppraisal of six current CPGs found major deficiencies or inconsistencies in guidance. CPGs tended to focus on evidence of device effectiveness, with sparse consideration of other outcomes important to patients such as impacts on quality of life and psychosocial well-being. Little reference was made to involvement of the patient in decision making.

conclusionsThis suggests that embedding shared decision in CPGs will improve the patient-centeredness of ICD treatment by enabling patients to make informed, value-based decisions. Specific recommendations for CPG development include the need for signposting to preference sensitive decision points as well as inclusion of a broader range of outcomes which are known to be important to patients when deciding whether or not to have a device fitted.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDefibrillators, ImplantablePractice Guidelines as TopicArrhythmias, CardiacDeath, Sudden, CardiacHeart FailureHumansPatient-Centered CareQuality of LifeRisk Assessment

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.