Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30337235›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of preventive medicine2018

Prostate Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Ilya Ivlev, Silvie Jerabkova, Meenakshi Mishra, Lily A Cook, Karen B Eden

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of preventive medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Effect of a Prostate Cancer Screening Decision Aid for African-American Men in Primary Care Settings.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Epidemiology and Implementation of Cancer Prevention in Disparate Populations and Settings.American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Annual Meeting · 2019
    Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

Ilya IvlevDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. Electronic address: ivlev@ohsu.edu.
Silvie JerabkovaDepartment of Corporate Finance, University of Economics, Prague, Czech Republic.
Meenakshi MishraDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Lily A CookDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Karen B EdenDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon; Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.

Funding

TRAINING PROGRAM IN HEALTH INFORMATICST15LM007088 · NLM · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI WILLIAM R HERSH, Vishnu Mohan · 1992 to 2026
$23.4M
NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007088
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextAlthough screening recommendations for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen testing often include shared decision making, the effect of patient decision aids on patients' intention and uptake is unclear. This study aimed to review the effect of decision aids on men's screening intention, screening utilization, and the congruence between intentions and uptake. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Data sources were searched through April 6, 2018, and included MEDLINE, Scopus, CENTRAL, CT.gov, Cochrane report, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, and reference lists. This study included RCTs and observational studies of decision aids that measured prostate screening intention or behavior. The analysis was completed in April 2018. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eighteen studies (13 RCTs, four before-after studies, and one non-RCT) reported data on screening intention for ≅8,400 men and screening uptake for 2,385 men. Compared with usual care, the use of decision aids in any format results in fewer men (aged ≥40 years) planning to undergo prostate-specific antigen testing (risk ratio=0.88, 95% CI=0.81, 0.95, p=0.006, I

conclusionsIntegration of decision aids in clinical practice may result in a decrease in the number of men who elect prostate-specific antigen testing, which may in turn reduce screening uptake. To ensure high congruence between intention and screening utilization, providers should not delay the shared decision-making discussion after patients use a decision aid.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesEarly Detection of CancerAgedControlled Before-After StudiesDecision MakingHumansIntentionMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID30337235
PMCPMC6467088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.