Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26170640›Full record

ReviewPatient preference and adherence2015

Factors that influence patient preferences for prostate cancer management options: A systematic review.

Timothy N Showalter, Mark V Mishra, John Fp Bridges

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Patient preference and adherence, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 3 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Quantitative imaging of the receptor for advanced glycation end-products in prostate cancer.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2020
    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

3 authors.

Timothy N ShowalterDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Mark V MishraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
John Fp BridgesDepartment of Health Care Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe performed a systematic review to evaluate evidence regarding factors that influence patient preferences for management options for localized prostate cancer.

methodsWe followed a prespecified search protocol (PROSPERO identifier CRD42014009173) to identify studies that evaluated patient preferences for prostate cancer management options for localized prostate cancer. We queried PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus, and Econ-Lit databases. Two separate reviewers completed the article selection process and review, including coding of study characteristics. Study quality was scored according to the PREFS checklist, which consists of five criteria: Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance. Reviewers summarized the primary findings of each article included in the analysis.

resultsOf the 606 citations identified in the literature search, there were a total of 21 articles that met all selection criteria, reporting results for a total of 4,131 subjects. Themes identified in the studies included: the importance of patient perceptions of treatment efficacy and side effects; the influence of physician recommendations on patient decision-making; and the prioritization of concerns regarding treatment side effects among those men who prefer radiation therapy or active surveillance. The articles had an average PREFS score of 3.4 (standard deviation [SD] 1.0), which is similar to a recent study for breast cancer treatment preferences.

conclusionThis systematic review of factors that influence patient preferences for prostate cancer management options identified a small, but high quality, group of articles that satisfied the selection criteria. The available evidence suggests that interventions aimed at informing patients regarding the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer management alternatives should include the influence of physician recommendations and family members' desires on patient decision-making.

Indexed as

decision makingpatientpreferencesprostate cancertreatment

Identifiers

PMID26170640
PMCPMC4494611

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.