ReviewCA: a cancer journal for clinicians2013
What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?
Review in CA: a cancer journal for clinicians, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Men's perspectives of prostate cancer screening: A systematic review of qualitative studies.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- Impact of provider-patient communication on cancer screening adherence: A systematic review.Preventive medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Are cancer-related decision aids appropriate for socially disadvantaged patients? A systematic review of US randomized controlled trials.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Pooled it
- Use of a Linguistically Appropriate Decision Aid for Cervical Cancer Screening of South Asian Ethnic Minority Women in Hong Kong: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2023Trial
- Opportunities and Challenges When Using the Electronic Health Record for Practice-Integrated Patient-Facing Interventions: The e-Assist Colon Health Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Trial
- Does Animation Improve Comprehension of Risk Information in Patients with Low Health Literacy? A Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2020Trial
- Interactivity in a Decision Aid: Findings From a Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared Decision Making RCT.American journal of preventive medicine · 2019Trial
- Design of a randomized clinical trial of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid to promote appropriate screening in community-dwelling older adults.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2017Trial
- Correlates of Patient Intent and Preference on Colorectal Cancer Screening.American journal of preventive medicine · 2017Trial
- Randomized Trial of a Computerized Touch Screen Decision Aid to Increase Acceptance of Colonoscopy Screening in an African American Population with Limited Literacy.Health communication · 2016Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Impact of Updated NCCN Guidelines on Clinical Management and Risk Communication forResearch square · 2026Article
- Effects of Web-Based Decision Aid to Support Cervical Cancer Screening Decision Among Young Working Women: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- Logic model framework for considering the inputs, processes and outcomes of a healthcare organisation-research partnership.BMJ quality & safety · 2020Article
- Preparing African American Men to Make Informed Prostate Cancer Screening Decisions: Development and Pilot Testing of an Interactive Online Decision Aid.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Article
- Prostate cancer awareness, case-finding, and early diagnosis: Interviews with undiagnosed men in Australia.PloS one · 2019Article
- Evaluating Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening.JAMA internal medicine · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent guidelines on cancer screening have provided not only more screening options but also conflicting recommendations. Thus, patients, with their clinicians' support, must decide whether to get screened, which modality to use, and how often to undergo screening. Decision aids could potentially lead to better shared decision-making regarding screening between the patient and the clinician. A total of 73 decision aids concerning screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers were reviewed. The goal of this review was to assess the effectiveness of such decision aids, examine areas in need of more research, and determine how the decision aids can be currently applied in the real-world setting. Most studies used sound study designs. Significant variation existed in the setting, theoretical framework, and measured outcomes. Just over one-third of the decision aids included an explicit values clarification. Other than knowledge, little consistency was noted with regard to which patient attributes were measured as outcomes. Few studies actually measured shared decision-making. Little information was available regarding the feasibility and outcomes of integrating decision aids into practice. In this review, the implications for future research, as well as what clinicians can do now to incorporate decision aids into their practice, are discussed.
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.