Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29270780›Full record

ArticleAdvances in therapy2018

Development of a Framework Based on Reflective MCDA to Support Patient-Clinician Shared Decision-Making: The Case of the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the United States.

Monika Wagner, Dima Samaha, Hanane Khoury, William M O'Neil, Louis Lavoie, Liga Bennetts, Danielle Badgley, Sylvie Gabriel, Anthony Berthon, James Dolan and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in therapy, 2018. 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
–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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Lanreotide vs octreotide LAR for patients with advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: An observational time and motion analysis.Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners · 2019
    Observational
  9. Article
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

12 authors.

Monika WagnerAnalytica Laser, Montreal, Canada. m.wagner@analytica-laser.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7654-1175
Dima SamahaAnalytica Laser, Montreal, Canada.
Hanane KhouryAnalytica Laser, Montreal, Canada.
William M O'NeilAnalytica Laser, Montreal, Canada.
Louis LavoieAnalytica Laser, Montreal, Canada.
Liga BennettsAnalytica Laser, Montreal, Canada.
Danielle BadgleyAnalytica Laser, Montreal, Canada.
Sylvie GabrielIpsen Pharma, Paris, France.
Anthony BerthonIpsen Pharma, Paris, France.
James DolanUniversity of Rochester, New York, USA.
Matthew H KulkeDana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, USA.
Mireille GoetghebeurAnalytica Laser, Montreal, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWell- or moderately differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are often slow-growing, and some patients with unresectable, asymptomatic, non-functioning tumors may face the choice between watchful waiting (WW), or somatostatin analogues (SSA) to delay progression. We developed a comprehensive multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework to help patients and physicians clarify their values and preferences, consider each decision criterion, and support communication and shared decision-making.

methodsThe framework was adapted from a generic MCDA framework (EVIDEM) with patient and clinician input. During a workshop, patients and clinicians expressed their individual values and preferences (criteria weights) and, on the basis of two scenarios (treatment vs WW; SSA-1 [lanreotide] vs SSA-2 [octreotide]) with evidence from a literature review, expressed how consideration of each criterion would impact their decision in favor of either option (score), and shared their knowledge and insights verbally and in writing.

resultsThe framework included benefit-risk criteria and modulating factors, such as disease severity, quality of evidence, costs, and constraints. Overall and progression-free survival being most important, criteria weights ranged widely, highlighting variations in individual values and the need to share them. Scoring and considering each criterion prompted a rich exchange of perspectives and uncovered individual assumptions and interpretations. At the group level, type of benefit, disease severity, effectiveness, and quality of evidence favored treatment; cost aspects favored WW (scenario 1). For scenario 2, most criteria did not favor either option.

conclusionsPatients and clinicians consider many aspects in decision-making. The MCDA framework provided a common interpretive frame to structure this complexity, support individual reflection, and share perspectives.

fundingIpsen Pharma.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Support TechniquesPatient PreferenceCommunicationHealth ExpendituresHumansIntestinal NeoplasmsNeuroendocrine TumorsPancreatic NeoplasmsProgression-Free SurvivalRisk AssessmentSeverity of Illness IndexSomatostatinStomach NeoplasmsUnited StatesWatchful WaitingSomatostatinGastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumorsMCDAOncologyShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID29270780
PMCPMC5778190

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.