ArticleFrontline gastroenterology2011
Can shared decision making increase the uptake of evidence in clinical practice?
Article in Frontline gastroenterology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Antiplatelet dilemma: Clopidogrel or aspirin for long-term cardiovascular protection after dual antiplatelet therapy following PCI.Medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Equipoise is preference sensitive.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2020Article
- New galaxies in the universe of shared decision-making and rheumatoid arthritis.Current opinion in rheumatology · 2020Review
- Talking about treatment benefits, harms, and what matters to patients in radiation oncology: an observational study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Observational
- The Patient Experience: Informing Practice through Identification of Meaningful Communication from the Patient's Perspective.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- Family physicians' intention to support women in making informed decisions about breast cancer screening with mammography: a cross-sectional survey.BMC research notes · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite copious research and clear policies in many healthcare systems, evidence based practice has yet to be widely adopted. Part of the problem is insufficient consideration of the patient-clinician consultation, which lies at the heart of clinical practice and is where most decisions are made. Shared decision making (SDM)-the interactive process in which patients and clinicians decide on healthcare together-capitalises on the consultation to better translate the best evidence into clinical decisions while taking the patient's values and preferences into account. This paper takes stock of interventions that seek to embed SDM in clinical practice, such as patient decision aids that target both patients and clinicians. It also presents challenges that remain: among others, the paucity of evidence on effective implementation strategies and the lack of consideration of how SDM works when care is delivered by interprofessional teams. The paper then reviews current initiatives to improve and disseminate SDM across the healthcare continuum, and discusses why SDM should be encouraged as a means to leverage evidence based practice. The evidence suggests that finding ways to overcome the challenges and promote SDM will accelerate the uptake of evidence in gastroenterology and hepatology clinical practice.
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.