ArticleJMIR medical informatics2017
Computerized Decision Aids for Shared Decision Making in Serious Illness: Systematic Review.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tailoring Antibiotic Duration for Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary Care: Protocol for a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial Study (STORM).JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Organizational Climate and Decision Aid Sustainability in Lupus Care: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- AMPDECIDE amputation level patient decision aids: a feasibility study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Shared Decision-Making Tools Implemented in the Electronic Health Record: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Artificial-Intelligence Cloud-Based Platform to Support Shared Decision-Making in the Locoregional Treatment of Breast Cancer: Protocol for a Multidimensional Evaluation Embedded in the CINDERELLA Clinical Trial.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2024Article
- Current use of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program surgical risk calculator in academic surgery: a mixed-methods study.Surgery in practice and science · 2023Article
- Patients' perspectives on a patient-oriented electronic decision support tool to reduce overuse of proton pump inhibitors (arriba-PPI): a qualitative study in primary care.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- What helps the successful implementation of digital decision aids supporting shared decision-making in cardiovascular diseases? A systematic review.European heart journal. Digital health · 2023Review
- Patients' perspectives on the benefits of feedback on patient-reported outcome measures in a web-based personalized decision report for hip and knee osteoarthritis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Shared decision-making in the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Decision Making When Cancer Becomes Chronic: Needs Assessment for a Web-Based Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma Patient Decision Aid.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- A dimensional analysis of inner strength in people ageing with serious illness.Nursing inquiry · 2020Article
- Models Used in Clinical Decision Support Systems Supporting Healthcare Professionals Treating Chronic Wounds: Systematic Literature Review.JMIR diabetes · 2018Review
- The Gray Zone: Adolescent and Young Adult Decision Support Needs for Ulcerative Colitis.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShared decision making (SDM) is important in achieving patient-centered care. SDM tools such as decision aids are intended to inform the patient. When used to assist in decision making between treatments, decision aids have been shown to reduce decisional conflict, increase ease of decision making, and increase modification of previous decisions.
objectiveThe purpose of this systematic review is to assess the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes related to SDM for seriously ill patients.
methodsPubMed and Scopus databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes and SDM in serious illness. Six RCTs were identified and data were extracted on study population, design, and results. Risk of bias was assessed by a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials.
resultsSix RCTs tested decision tools in varying serious illnesses. Three studies compared different computerized decision aids against each other and a control. All but one study demonstrated improvement in at least one patient-centered outcome. Computerized decision tools may reduce unnecessary treatment in patients with low disease severity in comparison with informational pamphlets. Additionally, electronic health record (EHR) portals may provide the opportunity to manage care from the home for individuals affected by illness. The quality of decision aids is of great importance. Furthermore, satisfaction with the use of tools is associated with increased patient satisfaction and reduced decisional conflict. Finally, patients may benefit from computerized decision tools without the need for increased physician involvement.
conclusionsMost computerized decision aids improved at least one patient-centered outcome. All RCTs identified were at a High Risk of Bias or Unclear Risk of Bias. Effort should be made to improve the quality of RCTs testing SDM aids in serious illness.
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.