Trial reportJAMA internal medicine2013
Decision making in prostate cancer screening using decision aids vs usual care: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in JAMA internal medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00196807 (Prostate Cancer Screening), which is not on this map. Cited by 48 papers, 7 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.
Prostate Cancer Screening: Fostering Informed Decisions
Who cites it
48 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Shared medical decision in prostate cancer screening in primary care: a systematic literature review of current evidence.International urology and nephrology · 2024Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- 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 · 2021Pooled it
- Values and preferences of men for undergoing prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- Web-Based Versus Usual Care and Other Formats of Decision Aids to Support Prostate Cancer Screening Decisions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled 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
- Trial
- The Genetic Education for Men (GEM) Trial: Development of Web-Based Education for Untested Men in BRCA1/2-Positive Families.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021Trial
- An exploratory mixed-methods crossover study comparing DVD- vs. Web-based patient decision support in three conditions: The importance of patient perspectives.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015Trial
- A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial for PSA Screening Decision Support Interventions in Two Primary Care Settings.Journal of general internal medicine · 2015Trial
- Impact of a printed decision aid on patients' intention to undergo prostate cancer screening: a multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015Trial
- A comparison of web-based versus print-based decision AIDS for prostate cancer screening: participants' evaluation and utilization.Journal of general internal medicine · 2015Trial
- Informed decision making among first-degree relatives of prostate cancer survivors: a pilot randomized trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2014Trial
- An online decision aid for patients with prostate cancer evaluating local treatment options reduces decisional conflict and distress and improves knowledge: Postmarket surveillance in German routine care.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Feasibility of an Intervention to Support Shared Decision-Making for Critically Ill Infants.The Journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- A pilot randomized clinical trial of a smartphone-based application to support at-home PSA screening and culturally tailored prostate cancer education for African American men: A study protocol.Contemporary clinical trials · 2024Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of Decision Aids for Cancer-Screening Decision Making: An Overview of Reviews.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Review
- Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening.Cancers · 2023Review
- A Study to Compare a CHW-Led Versus Physician-Led Intervention for Prostate Cancer Screening Decision-Making among Black Men.Ethnicity & disease · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
importanceThe conflicting recommendations for prostate cancer (PCa) screening and the mixed messages communicated to the public about screening effectiveness make it critical to assist men in making informed decisions.
objectiveTo assess the effectiveness of 2 decision aids in helping men make informed PCa screening decisions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsA racially diverse group of male outpatients aged 45 to 70 years from 3 sites were interviewed by telephone at baseline, 1 month, and 13 months, from 2007 through 2011. We conducted intention-to-treat univariate analyses and multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses, adjusting for baseline outcome measures.
interventionRandom assignment to print-based decision aid (n = 628), web-based interactive decision aid (n = 625), or usual care (UC) (n = 626). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Prostate cancer knowledge, decisional conflict, decisional satisfaction, and whether participants underwent PCa screening.
resultsOf 4794 eligible men approached, 1893 were randomized. At each follow-up assessment, univariate and multivariable analyses indicated that both decision aids resulted in significantly improved PCa knowledge and reduced decisional conflict compared with UC (all P <.001). At 1 month, the standardized mean difference (Cohen’s d) in knowledge for the web group vs UC was 0.74, and in the print group vs UC, 0.73. Decisional conflict was significantly lower for web vs UC (d = 0.33) and print vs UC (d = 0.36). At 13 months, these differences were smaller but remained significant. At 1 month, high satisfaction was reported by significantly more print (60.4%) than web participants (52.2%; P = .009) and significantly more web (P = .001) and print (P = .03) than UC participants (45.5%). At 13 months, differences in the proportion reporting high satisfaction among print (55.7%) compared with UC (49.8%; P = .06) and web participants (50.4%; P = .10) were not significant. Screening rates at 13 months did not differ significantly among groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Both decision aids improved participants’ informed decision making about PCa screening up to 13 months later but did not affect actual screening rates. Dissemination of these decision aids may be a valuable public health tool.
trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00196807.
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.