SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2018
Systematic review of shared decision-making in surgery.
Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 6 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
72 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 166 citations in OpenAlex.
- Behaviour, barriers and facilitators of shared decision making in breast cancer surgical treatment: A qualitative systematic review using a 'Best Fit' framework approach.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Pooled it
- Carbon-fibre plates for traumatic and (impending) pathological fracture fixation: Where do we stand? A systematic review.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2023Pooled it
- Parastomal hernia prevention with permanent mesh in end colostomy: failure with late follow-up of cohorts in three randomized trials.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Feasibility and effectiveness of tools that support communication and decision making in life-prolonging treatments for patients in hospital: a systematic review.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2022Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Risk Prediction Tools Used to Estimate Mortality, Morbidity, and Other Outcomes Following Major Lower Limb Amputation.European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Randomized control trial evaluating the use of a shared decision-making aid for older ventral hernia patients in the Geriatric Assessment and Medical Preoperative Screening (GrAMPS) Program.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022Trial
- Learning shared decision making in undergraduate medical education: a realist review.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2026Review
- An observational cohort study of factors associated with patients' reports of being offered lumbar spine surgery during orthopaedic spine consultations for chronic low back pain.British journal of pain · 2026Article
- PeriOperative Quality Initiative consensus statement recommendations on the definitions, aims and delivery of shared decision-making for major surgery.Anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Evaluating ChatGPT's Role in Patient Education on Distraction Osteogenesis for Limb Lengthening.Cureus · 2026Article
- Do patients scheduled for inguinal hernia repair express a preference for the repair technique? What questions do they frequently ask?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Observational
- Patient-centered care in cervical spine surgery - the impact of perceived patient involvement on patient-reported outcomes measures: a Swedish multicenter study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Observational
- Review
- Challenges in shared decision-making about major lower limb amputation: the PERCEIVE qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Observational
- Quality of life and functional outcomes after rectal sparing approaches following neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: a prospective cohort multicentre study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
- Language-specific approaches to reduce perioperative stress and anxiety related to anaesthesia for patients with limited English proficiency: A narrative review.Journal of perioperative practice · 2025Review
- The clinical application of shared decision-making in emergency surgery: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Postoperative outcomes in older patients living with frailty and multimorbidity in the UK: SNAP-3, a snapshot observational study.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Observational
- Article
12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on byCorrespondence.2019
- Commented on byCorrespondence.2019
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiple treatment options are generally available for most diseases. Shared decision-making (SDM) helps patients and physicians choose the treatment option that best fits a patient's preferences. This review aimed to assess the extent to which SDM is applied during surgical consultations, and the metrics used to measure SDM and SDM-related outcomes.
methodsThis was a systematic review of observational studies and clinical trials that measured SDM during consultations in which surgery was a treatment option. Embase, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were conducted by two investigators independently.
resultsThirty-two articles were included. SDM was measured using nine different metrics. Thirty-six per cent of 13 176 patients and surgeons perceived their consultation as SDM, as opposed to patient- or surgeon-driven. Surgeons more often perceived the decision-making process as SDM than patients (43·6 versus 29·3 per cent respectively). SDM levels scored objectively using the OPTION and Decision Analysis System for Oncology instruments ranged from 7 to 39 per cent. Subjective SDM levels as perceived by surgeons and patients ranged from 54 to 93 per cent. Patients experienced a higher level of SDM during consultations than surgeons (93 versus 84 per cent). Twenty-five different SDM-related outcomes were reported.
conclusionAt present, SDM in surgery is still in its infancy, although surgeons and patients both think of it favourably. Future studies should evaluate the effect of new interventions to improve SDM during surgical consultations, and its assessment using available standardized and validated metrics.
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.