Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28859646›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2017

Decision aids for second-line palliative chemotherapy: a randomised phase II multicentre trial.

Linda J M Oostendorp, Petronella B Ottevanger, A Rogier T Donders, Agnes J van de Wouw, Ivonne J H Schoenaker, Tineke J Smilde, Winette T A van der Graaf, Peep F M Stalmeier

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. A Joanna Briggs Institute Framework Approach to Shared Decision Making in End-of-Life.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Linda J M OostendorpDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5544-2672
Petronella B OttevangerDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
A Rogier T DondersDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Agnes J van de WouwDepartment of Internal Medicine, VieCuri Medical Centre, Venlo, the Netherlands.
Ivonne J H SchoenakerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Isala Clinics, Zwolle, the Netherlands.
Tineke J SmildeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, the Netherlands.
Winette T A van der GraafDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Peep F M StalmeierDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. peep.stalmeier@radboudumc.nl.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLIsala · NLJeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis · NLVieCuri Medisch Centrum · NL

Funding

Marie Curie MCCC-FCO-11-UMarie Curie MCCC-FPO-16-U
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is increasing recognition of the delicate balance between the modest benefits of palliative chemotherapy and the burden of treatment. Decision aids (DAs) can potentially help patients with advanced cancer with these difficult treatment decisions, but providing detailed information could have an adverse impact on patients' well-being. The objective of this randomised phase II study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DAs for patients with advanced cancer considering second-line chemotherapy.

methodsPatients with advanced breast or colorectal cancer considering second-line treatment were randomly assigned to usual care (control group) or usual care plus a DA (intervention group) in a 1:2 ratio. A nurse offered a DA with information on adverse events, tumour response and survival. Outcome measures included patient-reported well-being (primary outcome: anxiety) and quality of the decision-making process and the resulting choice.

resultsOf 128 patients randomised, 45 were assigned to the control group and 83 to the intervention group. Median age was 62 years (range 32-81), 63% were female, and 73% had colorectal cancer. The large majority of patients preferred treatment with chemotherapy (87%) and subsequently commenced treatment with chemotherapy (86%). No adverse impact on patients' well-being was found and nurses reported that consultations in which the DAs were offered went well. Being offered the DA was associated with stronger treatment preferences (3.0 vs. 2.5; p=0.030) and increased subjective knowledge (6.7 vs. 6.3; p=0.022). Objective knowledge, risk perception and perceived involvement were comparable between the groups.

conclusionsDAs containing detailed risk information on second-line palliative treatment could be delivered to patients with advanced cancer without having an adverse impact on patient well-being. Surprisingly, the DAs only marginally improved the quality of the decision-making process. The effectiveness of DAs for palliative treatment decisions needs further exploration.

trial registrationNetherlands Trial Registry (NTR): NTR1113 (registered on 2 November 2007).

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesPalliative CareAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic AgentsCost of IllnessDecision MakingFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsAntineoplastic AgentsBreast cancerColorectal cancerDecision aidsOncologyPalliative chemotherapySecond-line

Identifiers

PMID28859646
PMCPMC5580234
OpenAlexW2751128580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.