Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2016
Shared decision making in patients with low risk chest pain: prospective randomized pragmatic trial.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 64 papers, 11 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.
Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: The Chest Pain Choice Trial
Color Priming and Patient Decision-Making in the Emergency Department: Priming "Threat" in Patients With Low-Risk Chest Pain
Who cites it
64 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness of patient decision aids for cardiovascular decisions: systematic review with sex/gender-based analysis.European journal of cardiovascular nursing · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of patient decision aids used pre-consult or in-consult on patient-clinician communication - secondary analysis of a systematic review with meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Cardiovascular disease risk communication and prevention: a meta-analysis.European heart journal · 2024Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Interventions to Facilitate Shared Decision-Making Using Decision Aids with Coronary Heart Disease Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Interventions to Improve Communication at Hospital Discharge and Rates of Readmission: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2021Pooled it
- Engaging patients in de-implementation interventions to reduce low-value clinical care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Impact of decision aids used during clinical encounters on clinician outcomes and consultation length: a systematic review.BMJ quality & safety · 2019Pooled it
- Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- 2017 Update on Medical Overuse: A Systematic Review.JAMA internal medicine · 2018Pooled it
- A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Digital Patient Decision Tool to Increase Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing in the Emergency Department.Annals of emergency medicine · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Shared Decision Making for Syncope in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2020Trial
- Effect of the Head Computed Tomography Choice Decision Aid in Parents of Children With Minor Head Trauma: A Cluster Randomized Trial.JAMA network open · 2018Trial
- A Pilot Study of a Primary Palliative Care Communication Intervention (PRECURSOR) to Address Supportive Oncology Needs for Patients With Incurable Cancer and Their Caregivers in the Outpatient Oncology Setting.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterTrial
- A Team Approach to Patient-Centered Communication in the Emergency Department.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026Article
- "Talk About It!" Shared Decision-Making for Methadone and Buprenorphine Initiation: Development and Preliminary Evaluation of a Conversation Aid via Community-Based Participatory Research.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026Article
- A Digital Patient Decision Aid to Increase Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing in the Emergency Department: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of the STIckER (STI Check in the Emergency Room) Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- "Changeons les Règles!" development and feasibility testing of an encounter decision aid for menstrual management in adolescents and young adults with developmental disabilities.PEC innovation · 2025Article
4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of shared decision making with usual care in choice of admission for observation and further cardiac testing or for referral for outpatient evaluation in patients with possible acute coronary syndrome.
designMulticenter pragmatic parallel randomized controlled trial.
settingSix emergency departments in the United States.
participants898 adults (aged >17 years) with a primary complaint of chest pain who were being considered for admission to an observation unit for cardiac testing (451 were allocated to the decision aid and 447 to usual care), and 361 emergency clinicians (emergency physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) caring for patients with chest pain.
interventionsPatients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an electronic, web based system to shared decision making facilitated by a decision aid or to usual care. The primary outcome, selected by patient and caregiver advisers, was patient knowledge of their risk for acute coronary syndrome and options for care; secondary outcomes were involvement in the decision to be admitted, proportion of patients admitted for cardiac testing, and the 30 day rate of major adverse cardiac events.
resultsCompared with the usual care arm, patients in the decision aid arm had greater knowledge of their risk for acute coronary syndrome and options for care (questions correct: decision aid, 4.2 v usual care, 3.6; mean difference 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.86), were more involved in the decision (observing patient involvement scores: decision aid, 18.3 v usual care, 7.9; 10.3, 9.1 to 11.5), and less frequently decided with their clinician to be admitted for cardiac testing (decision aid, 37% v usual care, 52%; absolute difference 15%; P<0.001). There were no major adverse cardiac events due to the intervention.
conclusionsUse of a decision aid in patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome increased patient knowledge about their risk, increased engagement, and safely decreased the rate of admission to an observation unit for cardiac testing.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01969240.
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.