Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25666221›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2015

A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial for PSA Screening Decision Support Interventions in Two Primary Care Settings.

Carmen L Lewis, Jared Adams, Ming Tai-Seale, Qiwen Huang, Sarah B Knowles, Matthew E Nielsen, Michael P Pignone, Louise C Walter, Dominick L Frosch

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Contemporary use of real-world data for clinical trial conduct in the United States: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Carmen L LewisDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Mail stop B180, Academic Office 1, Room 8415, 12631 E 17th Ave, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA, Carmen.L.Lewis@ucdenver.edu.
Jared Adams
Ming Tai-Seale
Qiwen Huang
Sarah B Knowles
Matthew E Nielsen
Michael P Pignone
Louise C Walter
Dominick L Frosch
Palo Alto Institute · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USGordon and Betty Moore Foundation · USMedical Research Foundation · GBSan Francisco VA Medical Center · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

Prostate-Specific Antigen Practices and Outcomes in the ElderlyR01CA134425 · NCI · NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE/RES/EDU · PI WALTER, LOUISE C. · 2009 to 2013
$1.7M
Midcareer Mentoring Award for Patient-Oriented Research in AgingK24AG041180 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI WALTER, LOUISE C. · 2011 to 2016
$909k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA1334425-01NCI NIH HHS R01 CA134425NIA NIH HHS K24 AG041180
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecision support interventions (DESIs) provide a mechanism to translate comparative effectiveness research results into clinical care so that patients are able to make informed decisions. Patient decision support interventions for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) have been shown to promote informed decision making and reduce PSA testing in efficacy trials, but their impact in real world settings is not clear.

objectiveWe performed an effectiveness trial of PSA decision support interventions in primary care.

designA randomized controlled trial of three distribution strategies was compared to a control.

participantsParticipants included 2,550 men eligible for PSA testing (76.6 % of the eligible population) and 2001 survey respondents (60.1 % survey response rate).

interventionsThe intervention groups were: 1) mailed the DESI in DVD format, 2) offered a shared medical appointment (SMA) to view the DESI with other men and discuss, and 3) both options. MAIN MEASURES: We measured PSA testing identified via electronic medical record at 12 months and DESI use by self-report 4 months after the intervention mailing. KEY

resultsWe found no differences in PSA testing across the three distribution strategies over a year-long follow-up period: 21 %, 24 %, 22 % in the DESI, SMA, and combined group respectively, compared to 21 % in the control group (p = 0.51). Self-reported DESI use was low across all strategies at 4 months: 16 % in the mailed DESI group, 6 % in the SMA group, and 15 % in the combined group (p = < 0.0001).

conclusionsMailing PSA decision support interventions or inviting men to shared medical appointments unrelated to a primary care office visit do not appear to promote informed decision making, or change PSA testing behavior.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesPrimary Health CareAgedEarly Detection of CancerHumansKallikreinsMaleMiddle AgedProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsKallikreinsKLK3 protein, humanProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID25666221
PMCPMC4441669
OpenAlexW2142653677

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.