Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27048421›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2016

Communicating statin evidence to support shared decision-making.

Bruce Barrett, Jason Ricco, Margaret Wallace, David Kiefer, Dave Rakel

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. The Shared Decision Making of Older Adults in Healthcare.Working with older people (Brighton, England) · 2019
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors.

Bruce BarrettDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1100 Delaplaine Court, Madison, WI, 53715, USA. bruce.barrett@fammed.wisc.edu.
Jason RiccoDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
Margaret WallaceHealthEast Care System, St Paul, MN, 55102, USA.
David KieferGroup Health Cooperative, Madison, Wisconsin, 53703, USA.
Dave RakelDepartment of Family Medicine & Community Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 53715, USA.

Funding

Research Training in Complementary and Alternative MedicineT32AT006956 · NCCIH · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI BARRETT, BRUCE P · 2011 to 2017
$1.5M
Mentoring and research in patient-oriented medicineK24AT006543 · NCCIH · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI BARRETT, BRUCE P · 2012 to 2016
$818k
NCCIH NIH HHS K24 AT006543NCCIH NIH HHS K24AT006543NCCIH NIH HHS T32 AT006956NCCIH NIH HHS T32AT006956PHS HHS T32HP10010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe practice of clinical medicine rests on a foundation of ethical principles as well as scientific knowledge. Clinicians must artfully balance the principle of beneficence, doing what is best for patients, with autonomy, allowing patients to make their own well-informed health care decisions. The clinical communication process is complicated by varying degrees of confidence in scientific evidence regarding patient-oriented benefits, and by the fact that most medical options are associated with possible harms as well as potential benefits. DISCUSSION: Evidence-based clinical guidelines often neglect patient-oriented issues involved with the thoughtful practice of shared decision-making, where individual values, goals, and preferences should be prioritized. Guidelines on the use of statin medications for preventing cardiovascular events are a case in point. Current guidelines endorse the use of statins for people whose 10-year risk of cardiovascular events is as low as 7.5%. Previous guidelines set the 10-year risk benchmark at 20%. Meta-analysis of randomized trials suggests that statins can reduce cardiovascular event rates by about 25%, bringing 10-year risk from 7.5 to 5.6%, for example, or from 20 to 15%. Whether or not these benefits should justify the use of statins for individual patients depends on how those advantages are valued in comparison with disadvantages, such as side effect risks, and with inconveniences associated with taking a pill each day and visiting clinicians and laboratories regularly.

conclusionsWhether or not the overall benefit-harm balance justifies the use of a medication for an individual patient cannot be determined by a guidelines committee, a health care system, or even the attending physician. Instead, it is the individual patient who has a fundamental right to decide whether or not taking a drug is worthwhile. Researchers and professional organizations should endeavor to develop shared decision-making tools that provide up-to-date best evidence in easily understandable formats, so as to assist clinicians in helping their patients to make the decisions that are right for them.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingCommunicationDecision MakingPatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsCardiovascular DiseasesEvidence-Based MedicineHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsPatient PreferencePersonal AutonomyPractice Guidelines as TopicUncertaintyHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsAttitude to healthCholesterolClinical significanceCost-benefit analysisDecision makingEvidence-based medicineGuidelinesLipidsMinimal important differenceOutcomesPatient preferencePreventive cardiologyPrimary careQuality of lifeShared decision-makingStatins

Identifiers

PMID27048421
PMCPMC4822230

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
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.