ArticlePacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2016
Decision-Making Experiences of Patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators.
Article in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Development and piloting of four decision aids for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in different media formats.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2021Trial
- Patients' Perspectives on Applications of AI and Personalized Medicine in Life-Threatening Heart Disease: European Cross-Sectional Patient Questionnaire Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Patient Information Needs and Decision-Making Before a Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device: A Qualitative Study Utilizing Social Media Data.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2025Article
- Article
- A Qualitative Analysis of Patient-Related Factors Associated With Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Acceptance.Cardiology and therapy · 2020Article
- Patient and Cardiologist Perspectives on Shared Decision Making in the Treatment of Older Adults Hospitalized for Acute Myocardial Infarction.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2020Article
- Decision regret in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients : A cross-sectional analysis on patients that regret their decision after ICD implantation.Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2020Article
- "I don't know exactly what you're referring to": the challenge of values elicitation in decision making for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Article
- Enhancing Success of Medicare's Shared Decision Making Mandates Using Implementation Science: Examples Applying the Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM).MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhen patients are not adequately engaged in decision making, they may be at risk of decision regret. Our objective was to explore patients' perceptions of their decision-making experiences related to implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs).
methodsCross-sectional, mailed survey of 412 patients who received an ICD without cardiac resynchronization therapy for any indication between 2006 and 2009. Patients were asked about decision participation and decision regret.
resultsA total of 295 patients with ICDs responded (72% response rate). Overall, 79% reported that they were as involved in the decision as they wanted. However, 28% reported that they were not told of the option of not getting an ICD and 37% did not remember being asked if they wanted an ICD. In total, 19% reported not wanting their ICD at the time of implantation. Those who did not want the ICD were younger (<65 years; 74% vs 43%, P < 0.001), had higher decision regret (31/100 vs 11/100, P < 0.001), and reported less participation in decision making (the doctor "totally" made the decision, 9% vs 3%; P < 0.001).
conclusionsA considerable number of ICD recipients recalled not wanting their ICD at the time of implantation. While these findings may be prone to recall bias, they likely identify opportunities to improve ICD decision making.
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.