Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29273956›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2018

Interventions are needed to support patient-provider decision-making for DCIS: a scoping review.

Claire Kim, Laurel Liang, Frances C Wright, Nicole J Look Hong, Gary Groot, Lucy Helyer, Pamela Meiers, May Lynn Quan, Robin Urquhart, Rebecca Warburton and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Psychological morbidity in women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ compared with women with early breast cancer receiving radiotherapy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Quality of DCIS information on the internet: a content analysis.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2019
    Review
  15. Review
  16. 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

11 authors.

Claire KimUniversity Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Laurel LiangUniversity Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Frances C WrightSunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Nicole J Look HongSunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Gary GrootUniversity of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
Lucy HelyerDalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Pamela MeiersUniversity of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
May Lynn QuanUniversity of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Robin UrquhartDalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Rebecca WarburtonUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Anna R GagliardiUniversity Health Network, Toronto, Canada. anna.gagliardi@uhnresearch.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5721-809X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePrognostic and treatment uncertainty make ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) complex to manage. The purpose of this study was to describe research that evaluated DCIS communication experiences, needs and interventions among DCIS patients or physicians.

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February 2017. English language studies that evaluated patient or physician DCIS needs, experiences or behavioural interventions were eligible. Screening and data extraction were done in duplicate. Summary statistics were used to describe study characteristics and findings.

resultsA total of 51 studies published from 1997 to 2016 were eligible for review, with a peak of 8 articles in year 2010. Women with DCIS lacked knowledge about the condition and its prognosis, although care partners were more informed, desired more information and experienced decisional conflict. Many chose mastectomy or prophylactic mastectomy, often based on physician's recommendation. Following treatment, women had anxiety and depression, often at levels similar to those with invasive breast cancer. Disparities were identified by education level, socioeconomic status, ethnicity and literacy. Physicians said that they had difficulty explaining DCIS and many referred to DCIS as cancer. Despite the challenges reported by patients and physicians, only two studies developed interventions designed to improve patient-physician discussion and decision-making.

conclusionsAs most women with DCIS undergo extensive treatment, and many experience treatment-related complications, the paucity of research on PE to improve and support informed decision-making for DCIS is profound. Research is needed to improve patient and provider discussions and decision-making for DCIS management.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingFemaleHumansPatientsPhysiciansCommunicationDecision-makingDuctal carcinoma in situSupportive care

Identifiers

PMID29273956
PMCPMC5842253

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.