ArticleBMJ open2019
Protocol for a randomised trial evaluating the comparative effectiveness of strategies to promote shared decision making for hip and knee osteoarthritis (DECIDE-OA study).
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02729831 (Comparative Effectiveness of Decision Support Strategies for Joint Replacement Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
Comparative Effectiveness of Decision Support Strategies for Joint Replacement Surgery: A Factorial Randomized Trial
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decision Support Strategies for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: Less Is More: A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial (DECIDE-OA Study).The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume · 2019Trial
- Osteoarthritis: Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment.MedComm · 2026Review
- Shared decision-making and patient decision aids in knee osteoarthritis: a scoping review.Knee surgery & related research · 2026Review
- Impact of an in-consult patient decision aid on decisional quality, involvement, and health outcome for patients with severe hip or knee osteoarthritis - a study protocol for a multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial (PATI-study).BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- [Interpretation and Examples: Key Updates in SPIRIT 2025 Statement].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025Article
- SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Validation of the Impact Index: can we measure disease effects on quality of life in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis?Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021Article
- Current Status and Future Prospects for Shared Decision Making Before and After Total Knee Replacement Surgery-A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Validation of the SDM Process Scale to Evaluate Shared Decision-Making at Clinical Sites.Journal of patient experience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere are several different interventions available to promote shared decision making (SDM); however, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of different approaches.
objectiveTo examine the impact of patient-directed and physician-directed decision support strategies on the quality of treatment decisions for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). TRIAL
designA 2×2 factorial randomised controlled trial.
settingOne academic medical centre, one community hospital and one orthopaedic specialty hospital. PARTICIPANTS AND
interventionsThe enrolment targets were 8 surgeons and 1120 patients diagnosed with hip or knee OA. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one of two different decision aids (DAs) stratified by site. The DAs varied in length, content and the level of detail regarding treatment options. Both DAs were available by paper or online.Surgeons were randomly assigned to receive a report detailing patients' goals and treatment preferences at the time of the visit or not. Eligible patients received their assigned DA before their visit and completed three surveys: before the visit (timepoint (T)1), 1-week postvisit (T2) and 6 months from either the visit date or surgery date for patients who underwent surgery (T3). Study staff and participating surgeons were not blinded, but the statistician conducting the analyses was blinded to the arms. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE AND ANALYSIS: The primary study outcome was decision quality, the percentage of patients who were well informed and received their preferred treatment. Secondary outcomes included involvement in decision making, surgical rates, health outcomes, decision regret and satisfaction. A logistic regression model with the generalised estimating equations approach was used to compare rates of decision quality between the groups and account for the clustering of patients within providers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained through the institutional review board at the main site. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02729831; Pre-results.
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.