ArticlePloS one2018
Mind the gap: Physicians' assessment of patients' importance weights in localized prostate cancer.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis of predictive models to assess the clinical validity and utility for patient-centered medical decision making: application to the CAncer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA).BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Pooled it
- Unmet needs in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer from the Japanese patient perspective: a discrete choice experiment.BMJ open · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe management of localized prostate cancer is challenging because of the many therapeutic options available, none of which is generally acknowledged as superior to the others in every respect. The selection of the most appropriate treatment should therefore reflect patients' preferences.
objectiveThe purpose of the following study was to pilot a new approach for investigating whether urologists who had previously provided patients with therapeutic advice actually knew their patients' importance weights concerning the relevant aspects of the treatments at issue.
methodParticipants were patients recently diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (n = 20), urologists (n = 10), and non-medical professionals (architects, n = 10). These last served as a control group for the urologists and were matched to them for age and gender. Patients' importance weights were elicited by two standard methods (Direct Rating and Value Hierarchy). Each urologist was asked to estimate (with Direct Rating) his/her patient's importance weights. The same task was performed by a corresponding architect, who never met the patient and knew only the patient's age. Univariate and bivariate statistical analyses were performed to investigate the association between importance weights as elicited from patients and as estimated by urologists and architects, as well as to assess whether such agreement was attribute-dependent.
resultsParticipants found both elicitation methods easy to use. The correlation between patients' actual importance weights and urologists' estimates was poor and comparable to that obtained between patients and architects. This result did not depend on the attribute considered, with the sole exception of the attribute "Effectiveness in curing the cancer", which was evaluated as the most important attribute by the majority of participants.
conclusionThese findings demonstrate the feasibility of the employed methodology and highlight the need to support preference-sensitive decisions in clinical practice by facilitating the elicitation of patients' importance weights, as well as their communication to physicians.
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.