Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29269567›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2018

Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist.

Karen R Sepucha, Purva Abhyankar, Aubri S Hoffman, Hilary L Bekker, Annie LeBlanc, Carrie A Levin, Mary Ropka, Victoria A Shaffer, Stacey L Sheridan, Dawn Stacey and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 115 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
115citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

115 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Effect of Patient Decision Aid Attributes on Patient Outcomes: A Network Meta-Analysis of a Systematic Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Addressing Health Literacy in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021
    Pooled it
  10. Are We Improving? Update and Critical Appraisal of the Reporting of Decision Process and Quality Measures in Trials Evaluating Patient Decision Aids.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021
    Pooled it
  11. Kidney disease pathways, options and decisions: an environmental scan of international patient decision aids.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2020
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

55 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Karen R SepuchaDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Purva AbhyankarFaculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Aubri S HoffmanDepartment of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Hilary L BekkerLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Annie LeBlancDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Universite Laval Faculte de medecine, Quebec, Canada.
Carrie A LevinDepartment of Research, Healthwise Inc, Boise, Idaho, USA.
Mary RopkaPublic Health Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Victoria A ShafferHealth Sciences and Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA.
Stacey L SheridanThe Reaching for High Value Care Team, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Dawn StaceyOttawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Peep StalmeierHealth Evidence, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ha VoDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Celia E WillsCollege of Nursing, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Richard ThomsonInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Funding

Developing Guidelines for Reporting Evaluation Studies of Patient Decision AidsR13HS024250 · AHRQ · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI SEPUCHA, KAREN R · 2015 to 2015
$35k
AHRQ HHS R13 HS024250
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient decision aids (PDAs) are evidence-based tools designed to help patients make specific and deliberated choices among healthcare options. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration review papers and Cochrane systematic review of PDAs have found significant gaps in the reporting of evaluations of PDAs, including poor or limited reporting of PDA content, development methods and delivery. This study sought to develop and reach consensus on reporting guidelines to improve the quality of publications evaluating PDAs.

methodsAn international workgroup, consisting of members from IPDAS Collaboration, followed established methods to develop reporting guidelines for PDA evaluation studies. This paper describes the results from three completed phases: (1) planning, (2) drafting and (3) consensus, which included a modified, two-stage, online international Delphi process. The work was conducted over 2 years with bimonthly conference calls and three in-person meetings. The workgroup used input from these phases to produce a final set of recommended items in the form of a checklist.

resultsThe SUNDAE Checklist (Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations) includes 26 items recommended for studies reporting evaluations of PDAs. In the two-stage Delphi process, 117/143 (82%) experts from 14 countries completed round 1 and 96/117 (82%) completed round 2. Respondents reached a high level of consensus on the importance of the items and indicated strong willingness to use the items when reporting PDA studies.

conclusionThe SUNDAE Checklist will help ensure that reports of PDA evaluation studies are understandable, transparent and of high quality. A separate Explanation and Elaboration publication provides additional details to support use of the checklist.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesChecklistDelphi TechniqueHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient ParticipationPractice Guidelines as TopicQuality of Health Carechecklistspatient-centred carepatient educationshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID29269567
PMCPMC5965362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.