ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2019
[Shared decision-making in prostate cancer patients].
Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is becoming increasingly important in medical care. The relevance of SDM after diagnosis is especially noticeable in the care of prostate cancer patients, since affected patients can choose from different treatment strategies.
objectivesWhat are the experiences of patients regarding SDM in the treatment of prostate cancer?
methodsInterviews with qualitative-exploratory study design were carried out and evaluated. The interviews were recorded with the help of audio tapes and literally transcribed and pseudonymized based on Kuckartz. The evaluation was done by theoretical coding according to Glaser and Strauss. This enabled the development of an object-based theory of interview data.
resultsThe study shows that all interviewees experienced SDM and were able to reflect on this process. The interviewed patients had a high level of information regarding their disease status and treatment options, in which individual preferences played a key role. Some patients saw potential for optimization in the physician-patient conversation, taking personal preferences into account.
conclusionsPatients are not limited to medical information only, but have taken an active role in their treatment decision. Many of the participants consulted several physicians to obtain second opinions. Since the survey focuses on the patients' perspective, it remains unclear whether a joint exchange of information and decision-making has taken place from a medical point of view.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30238132What 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.