ReviewDeutsches Arzteblatt international2015
Outcome-Relevant Effects of Shared Decision Making.
Review in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
40 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making in the South Korean healthcare system.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Shared Decision-Making Interventions for Service Users With Serious Mental Illnesses: State of the Science and Future Directions.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2021Pooled it
- Germline and Somatic Tumor Testing in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Strategies to evaluate healthcare provider trainings in shared decision-making (SDM): a systematic review of evaluation studies.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Shared Decision Making: Evidence from a Prospective Multicenter Study Evaluating a Hospital-Based Intervention in Germany.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Article
- Goal attainment scaling for patients with chronic low back pain receiving physical therapist care: a feasibility and reliability study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Article
- Should we consider gender aspects in pharmacology teaching? No-we must!Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Health-related quality of life outcomes of bioabsorbable Phasix Mesh versus permanent synthetic mesh following open ventral hernia repair: a systematic literature review and narrative synthesis.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Review
- Physician Perspectives on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Therapeutic Relationship in Mental Health Care: Qualitative Study.JMIR mental health · 2025Article
- Patient engagement and shared decision-making in trial recruitment intervention studies: a systematic review.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Cross-sectional study assessing health outcome priorities of older adults with multimorbidity at a primary care setting in Singapore.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Engagement of Older Adults Receiving Home Care Services and Their Caregivers in Health Decisions in Partnership With Clinical Teams: Protocol for a Multimethod Study to Prioritize and Culturally Adapt Decision Aids for Home Care.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Adaptation and Implementation of a Shared Decision-Making Tool From One Health Context to Another: Partnership Approach Using Mixed Methods.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Shared decision making and medication adherence in patients with COPD and/or asthma: the ANANAS study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- An integrated precision medicine approach in major depressive disorder: a study protocol to create a new algorithm for the prediction of treatment response.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Inhalation Devices in 7- to 15-Year-Old Children with Asthma - A Patient Preference Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review.PloS one · 2022Article
- Teaching Shared Decision Making to Undergraduate Medical Students.Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the literature surrounding shared decision-making in elective rhinological surgery: A scoping review.Auris, nasus, larynx · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShared decision making (SDM) is considered a gold standard for the cooperation of doctor and patient. SDM improves patients' overall satisfaction and their confidence in decisions that have been taken. The extent to which it might also positively affect patient-relevant, disease-related endpoints is a matter of debate.
methodsWe systematically searched the PubMed database and the Cochrane Library for publications on controlled intervention studies of SDM. The quality of the intervention and the risk of bias in each publication were assessed on the basis of pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The effects of SDM on patient-relevant, disease-related endpoints were compared, and effect sizes were calculated.
resultsWe identified 22 trials that differed widely regarding the patient populations studied, the types of intervention performed, and the mode of implementation of SDM. In ten articles, 57% of the endpoints that were considered relevant were significantly improved by the SDM intervention compared to the control group. The median effect size (Cohen's d) was 0.53 (0.14-1.49). In 12 trials, outcomes did not differ between the two groups. In all 22 studies identified, 39% of the relevant outcomes were significantly improved compared with the control groups.
conclusionThe trials performed to date to addressing the effect of SDM on patient-relevant, disease-related endpoints are insufficient in both quantity and quality. Although just under half of the trials reviewed here indicated a positive effect, no final conclusion can be drawn. A consensus-based standardization of both SDM-promoting measures and appropriate clinical studies are needed.
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.