Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26109115›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2015

Video decision aids to assist with advance care planning: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ashu Jain, Sophie Corriveau, Kathleen Quinn, Amanda Gardhouse, Daniel Brandt Vegas, John J You

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors.

Ashu JainDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sophie CorriveauDivision of Respirology, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Kathleen QuinnDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Amanda GardhouseDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Daniel Brandt VegasDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, St Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
John J YouDepartments of Medicine, and Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAdvance care planning (ACP) can result in end-of-life care that is more congruent with patients' values and preferences. There is increasing interest in video decision aids to assist with ACP. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of video decision aids on patients' preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments (primary outcome).

designSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, AMED and CENTRAL, between 1980 and February 2014, and correspondence with authors. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials of adult patients that compared a video decision aid to a non-video-based intervention to assist with choices about use of life-sustaining treatments and reported at least one ACP-related outcome. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers worked independently and in pairs to screen potentially eligible articles, and to extract data regarding risk of bias, population, intervention, comparator and outcomes. Reviewers assessed quality of evidence (confidence in effect estimates) for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.

results10 trials enrolling 2220 patients were included. Low-quality evidence suggests that patients who use a video decision aid are less likely to indicate a preference for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (pooled risk ratio, 0.50 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.95); I(2)=65%). Moderate-quality evidence suggests that video decision aids result in greater knowledge related to ACP (standardised mean difference, 0.58 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.77); I(2)=0%). No study reported on the congruence of end-of-life treatments with patients' wishes. No study evaluated the effect of video decision aids when integrated into clinical care.

conclusionsVideo decision aids may improve some ACP-related outcomes. Before recommending their use in clinical practice, more evidence is needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the impact of video decision aids when integrated into patient care.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningDecision Support TechniquesVideo RecordingAdvance DirectivesAgedAged, 80 and overCardiopulmonary ResuscitationCritical CareHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationPatient PreferenceRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicadvance care planningshared decision makingsystematic reviewvideo

Identifiers

PMID26109115
PMCPMC4480030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.