ReviewArab journal of urology2018
Multi-disciplinary and shared decision-making approach in the management of organ-confined prostate cancer.
Review in Arab journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Outcome of Immediate Adjuvant Postoperative External Beam Radiotherapy Versus Observation Alone After Radical Prostatectomy in High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Meta Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- A real-world evidence study of interhospital variability in the surgical treatment of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: the REVALURO study.International urology and nephrology · 2025Observational
- Practices, beliefs, and attitudes of clinicians in prescribing direct oral anticoagulants for obese adults with atrial fibrillation: a qualitative study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Article
- Implementation of the measure of case discussion complexity to guide selection of prostate cancer patients for multidisciplinary team meetings.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Registered nurses' views on consideration of patient perspectives during multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care.BMC nursing · 2022Article
- Article
- Differentiating solitary brain metastases from glioblastoma by radiomics features derived from MRI and 18F-FDG-PET and the combined application of multiple models.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Urological surgery in the COVID-19 era: Patient counselling and informed consent.Arab journal of urology · 2020Review
- Differentiation of supratentorial single brain metastasis and glioblastoma by using peri-enhancing oedema region-derived radiomic features and multiple classifiers.European radiology · 2020Article
- Shared decision making for men facing prostate cancer treatment: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Patient preference and adherence · 2019Review
- Comprehensive consent in urology using decision aids, leaflets, videos and newer technologies: empowering patient choice and shared decision-making.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
- Review
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
Decision-making in the management of organ-confined prostate cancer is complex as it is based on multi-factorial considerations. It is complicated by a multitude of issues, which are related to the patient, treatment, disease, availability of equipment(s), expertise, and physicians. Combination of all these factors play a major role in the decision-making process and provide for an interactive decision-making preferably in the multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meeting. MDT decisions are comprehensive and are often based on all factors including patients' biological status, disease and its aggressiveness, and physician and centres' expertise. However, one important and often under rated factor is patient-related factors. There is considerable evidence that patients and physicians have different goals for treatment and physicians' understanding of their own patients' preferences is not accurate. Several patient-related key factors have been identified such as age, religious beliefs, sexual health, educational background, and cognitive impairment. We have focused on these areas and highlight some key factors that need to be taken considered whilst counselling a patient and understanding his choice of treatment, which might not always be match with the clinicians' recommendation.
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.