Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27510740›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2017

Physician Recommendations Trump Patient Preferences in Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions.

Karen A Scherr, Angela Fagerlin, Timothy Hofer, Laura D Scherer, Margaret Holmes-Rovner, Lillie D Williamson, Valerie C Kahn, Jeffrey S Montgomery, Kirsten L Greene, Biqi Zhang and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Preparing Patients with Early Stage Prostate Cancer to Participate in Clinical Appointments Using a Shared Decision Making Training Video.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Trial
  6. The Impact of 4 Risk Communication Interventions on Cancer Screening Preferences and Knowledge.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Head to head randomized trial of two decision aids for prostate cancer.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021
    Trial
  10. The impact of a physician's recommendation and gender on informed decision making: A randomized controlled study in a simulated decision situation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Trial
  11. Decisional autonomy undermines advisees' judgments of experts in medicine and in life.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors.

Karen A ScherrFuqua School of Business and School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA (KAS).
Angela FagerlinDepartments of Internal Medicine and Psychology, Center for Bioethics and Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, The Ann Arbor VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (AF).
Timothy HoferDivision of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, The Ann Arbor VA HSR&D Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (TH).
Laura D SchererDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA (LDS).
Margaret Holmes-RovnerDepartment of Medicine and Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA (MH-R).
Lillie D WilliamsonFuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA (LDW).
Valerie C KahnDivision of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (VCK).
Jeffrey S MontgomeryDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Department of Surgery, Ann Arbor VA, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (JSM).
Kirsten L GreeneDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco, Department of Urology, San Francisco VA, San Francisco, CA, USA (KLG).
Biqi ZhangDuke University, Durham, NC, USA (BZ).
Peter A UbelFuqua School of Business, School of Medicine and Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA (PAU).

Funding

MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM007171 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI KONTOS, CHRISTOPHER D · 1985 to 2021
$31.2M
IDENTIFY &REDUCE COGNITIVE BIASES OF DECISION AIDSR01CA087595 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI UBEL, PETER A · 2002 to 2011
$4.2M
Clinical Communication Following a Decision AidR03HS021764 · AHRQ · MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY · PI HOLMES-ROVNER, MARGARET M · 2012 to 2012
$100k
AHRQ HHS R03 HS021764NCI NIH HHS R01 CA087595NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007171
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the influence of patient preferences and urologist recommendations in treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate cancer.

methodsWe enrolled 257 men with clinically localized prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen <20; Gleason score 6 or 7) seen by urologists (primarily residents and fellows) in 4 Veterans Affairs medical centers. We measured patients' baseline preferences prior to their urology appointments, including initial treatment preference, cancer-related anxiety, and interest in sex. In longitudinal follow-up, we determined which treatment patients received. We used hierarchical logistic regression to determine the factors that predicted treatment received (active treatment v. active surveillance) and urologist recommendations. We also conducted a directed content analysis of recorded clinical encounters to determine if urologists discussed patients' interest in sex.

resultsPatients' initial treatment preferences did not predict receipt of active treatment versus surveillance, Δχ

conclusionsPatients' treatment decisions were based largely on urologists' recommendations, which, in turn, were based on medical factors (age and Gleason score) and not on patients' personal views of the relative pros and cons of treatment alternatives.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPhysiciansAgedAge FactorsAnxietyCoitusCommunicationHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingPatient ParticipationPatient PreferencePhysician-Patient RelationsProstatic NeoplasmsHierarchical ModelsLogistic Regression ModelsPhysician-Patient CommunicationProstate cancerQualitative MethodsShared Decision MakingUrology

Identifiers

PMID27510740
PMCPMC5587215

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.