SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2018
Web-Based Versus Usual Care and Other Formats of Decision Aids to Support Prostate Cancer Screening Decisions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of decision aid delivery modes in prostate cancer screening: umbrella review and network meta-analysis.BJU international · 2025Pooled it
- Use of digital patient decision-support tools for atrial fibrillation treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Assessing the Content and Effect of Web-Based Decision Aids for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Web-based decision aids for cancer clinical decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Pooled it
- Decision-support tools via mobile devices to improve quality of care in primary healthcare settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Prostate Cancer: Community Education and Disparities in Diagnosis and Treatment.The oncologist · 2021Pooled it
- Improving Breast Cancer Outcomes by Enhanced Activities in Early Detection and Diagnosis: An Umbrella Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials in High-Income Contexts With Universal Healthcare Coverage.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterPooled it
- Effects of a smartphone application named "Shared Decision Making Assistant" for informed patients with primary liver cancer in decision-making in China: a quasi-experimental study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Trial
- Interactive Versus Static Decision Support Tools for COVID-19: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2022Trial
- Demographic and Psychosocial Characteristics Associated With Use of a Prostate Cancer Survivorship Website: Implications From a Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Evaluating a Video-Based, Personalized Webpage in Genitourinary Oncology Clinical Trials: A Phase 2 Randomized Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Trial
- An online decision aid for patients with prostate cancer evaluating local treatment options reduces decisional conflict and distress and improves knowledge: Postmarket surveillance in German routine care.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Article
- Effectiveness of Technology-Based Interventions in Promoting Lung Cancer Screening Uptake and Decision-Making Among Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
- Comparative Effectiveness of Decision Aids for Cancer-Screening Decision Making: An Overview of Reviews.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Review
- Effectiveness of de-implementation of low-value healthcare practices: an overview of systematic reviews.Implementation science : IS · 2024Review
- Co-designing an online treatment decision aid for men with low-risk prostate cancer: Navigate.BJUI compass · 2024Article
- Understanding how shared decision-making approaches and patient aids influence patients with advanced cancer when deciding on palliative treatments and care: A realist review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Review
- Decision Aids in the ICU: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProstate cancer is a leading cause of cancer among men. Because screening for prostate cancer is a controversial issue, many experts in the field have defended the use of shared decision making using validated decision aids, which can be presented in different formats (eg, written, multimedia, Web). Recent studies have concluded that decision aids improve knowledge and reduce decisional conflict.
objectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of using Web-based decision aids to support men's prostate cancer screening decisions in comparison with usual care and other formats of decision aids.
methodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases up to November 2016. This search identified randomized controlled trials, which assessed Web-based decision aids for men making a prostate cancer screening decision and reported quality of decision-making outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Using a random-effects model, meta-analyses were conducted pooling results using mean differences (MD), standardized mean differences (SMD), and relative risks (RR).
resultsOf 2406 unique citations, 7 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and participant/personnel blinding were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on seven items, two studies had high risk of bias for one item. Compared to usual care, Web-based decision aids increased knowledge (SMD 0.46; 95% CI 0.18-0.75), reduced decisional conflict (MD -7.07%; 95% CI -9.44 to -4.71), and reduced the practitioner control role in the decision-making process (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.31-0.81). Web-based decision aids compared to printed decision aids yielded no differences in knowledge, decisional conflict, and participation in decision or screening behaviors. Compared to video decision aids, Web-based decision aids showed lower average knowledge scores (SMD -0.50; 95% CI -0.88 to -0.12) and a slight decrease in prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01-1.25).
conclusionsAccording to this analysis, Web-based decision aids performed similarly to alternative formats (ie, printed, video) for the assessed decision-quality outcomes. The low cost, readiness, availability, and anonymity of the Web can be an advantage for increasing access to decision aids that support prostate cancer screening decisions among men.
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.