Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24920518›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2014

Development of a patient decision aid for people with refractory angina: protocol for a three-phase pilot study.

Michael Hugh McGillion, Sandra Lee Carroll, Kelly Metcalfe, Heather Mary Arthur, Joseph Charles Victor, Robert McKelvie, Etienne Marc Jolicoeur, Marie-Gabrielle Lessard, James Stone, Nelson Svorkdal and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

18 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

Michael Hugh McGillionFaculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, 1280 Main St, W, Hamilton ON, L8N 3Z5, Canada. mmcgill@mcmaster.ca.
Sandra Lee Carroll
Kelly Metcalfe
Heather Mary Arthur
Joseph Charles Victor
Robert McKelvie
Etienne Marc Jolicoeur
Marie-Gabrielle Lessard
James Stone
Nelson Svorkdal
John George Hanlon
Ada Andrade
Joel Niznick
Louise Malysh
William McDonald
Bonnie Stevens
Peter Coyte
Dawn Stacey
University of Toronto · CAMcMaster University · CAMontreal Heart Institute · CASt. Michael's Hospital · CASt. Paul's Hospital · CABank of Canada · CAHamilton Health Sciences · CALibin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta · CARoyal Jubilee Hospital · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research MOP-115001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRefractory angina is a severe chronic disease, defined as angina which cannot be controlled by usual treatments for heart disease. This disease is frightening, debilitating, and difficult to manage. Many people suffering refractory have inadequate pain relief, continually revisit emergency departments for help, undergo repeated cardiac investigations, and struggle with obtaining appropriate care. There is no clear framework to help people understand the risks and benefits of available treatment options in Canada. Some treatments for refractory angina are invasive, while others are not covered by provincial health insurance plans. Effective care for refractory angina sufferers in Canada is critically underdeveloped; it is important that healthcare professionals and refractory angina sufferers alike understand the treatment options and their implications. This proposal builds on the recent Canadian practice guidelines for the management of refractory angina. We propose to develop a decision support tool in order to help people suffering from refractory angina make well-informed decisions about their healthcare and reduce their uncertainty about treatment options.

methodsThis project will be conducted in three phases: a) development of the support tool with input from clinical experts, the Canadian refractory angina guidelines, and people living with refractory angina, b) pilot testing of the usability of the tool, and c) formal preliminary evaluation of the effectiveness of the support tool to help people make informed decisions about treatment options. DISCUSSION: A decision support tool for refractory angina is needed and the available data suggest that by developing such a tool, we may be able to help refractory angina sufferers better understand their condition and the effectiveness of available treatment options (in their respective clinical settings) as well as their implications (e.g. risks vs. benefits). By virtue of this tool, we may also be able to facilitate identification and inclusion of patients' values and preferences in the decision making process. This is particularly important as refractory angina is an intractable condition, necessitating that the selected course of treatment be lifelong. This study will yield a much needed patient decision aid for people living with refractory angina and pilot data to support a subsequent effectiveness study.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAngina PectorisCanadaDecision MakingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansPilot ProjectsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID24920518
PMCPMC4065088
OpenAlexW2141319269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.