Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26969330›Full record

ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2016

[Decision aids for patients are widely accepted by German urologists : A survey among members of the German Society of Urology (DGU) and the Federation of German Urologists (BDU)].

C Groeben, M Baunacke, A Borkowetz, S Kliesch, C Wülfing, A Ihrig, J Huber

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

C GroebenKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland.
M BaunackeKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland.
A BorkowetzKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland.
S KlieschCentrum für Reproduktionsmedizin und Andrologie, Abteilung für Klinische Andrologie, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Deutschland.
C WülfingAbteilung für Urologie, Asklepios Klinik Altona, Hamburg, Deutschland.
A IhrigSektion Psychoonkologie, Klinik für Allgemeine Innere Medizin und Psychosomatik, Universitätsklinik Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
J HuberKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland. johannes.huber@uniklinikum-dresden.de.
Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie · DETU Dresden · DEAsklepios Klinik Altona · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEUniversity Hospital Münster · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTreatment decision making remains a complex task for localized prostate cancer. Decision aids for patients can support the medical consultation. However, it is not known if German urologists accept decision aids for patients. Comparative data exist from a current survey among american urologists and radio oncologists. MATERIALS AND

methodsFrom October through November 2014 we conducted an online survey consisting of 11 multiple-choice questions and an optional free text commentary among the members of DGU and BDU. All data was processed anonymously. We received 464 complete responses for a 6.6 % return rate. For group comparison we applied the Chi2-test.

resultsRespondents' median age was 50 (range 26-87) years and 15 % were female. 7 % were residents, 31 % employed at a clinic, and 57 % in private practice. Due to the low response rate of younger colleagues the results were not representative for the basic population. Regardless of age (p = 0.2) and professional environment (p = 1) shared decision making was preferred by 89 %. When counseling their patients with localized prostate cancer 20 % relied exclusively on conversation. To support their conversation 63 % used print media, 49 % decision aids, 33 % contact offers to support groups, 24 % Internet resources and 13 % video material. From using decision aids 86 % expected positive effects for patients and 78 % for physicians (p = 0.017). 15 % expected a change of the treatment decision. 77 % would motivate their patients to use a decision aid.

conclusionsIn comparison to the opinion of american urologists and radio oncologists the acceptance of decision aids for patients among German urologists is significantly higher.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAttitude of Health PersonnelClinical Decision-MakingDecision Support TechniquesFemaleGermanyHealth Care SurveysHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationProstatic NeoplasmsUrologistsUrologyDecision aidsHealth services researchShared decision makingSurveyUrologic oncology

Identifiers

PMID26969330
OpenAlexW2295476435

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.