Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31342311›Full record

SynthesisBreast cancer research and treatment2019

Assessing the quality and communicative aspects of patient decision aids for early-stage breast cancer treatment: a systematic review.

Ruben Vromans, Kim Tenfelde, Steffen Pauws, Mies van Eenbergen, Ingeborg Mares-Engelberts, Galina Velikova, Lonneke van de Poll-Franse, Emiel Krahmer

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Development of a patient decision aid for patients with breast cancer who consider immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Ruben VromansDepartment of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, 5035 AB, Tilburg, The Netherlands. r.d.vromans@uvt.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8040-1207
Kim TenfeldeDepartment of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, 5035 AB, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Steffen PauwsDepartment of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, 5035 AB, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Mies van EenbergenDepartment of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ingeborg Mares-EngelbertsDepartment of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Galina VelikovaLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St Jame's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Lonneke van de Poll-FranseDepartment of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Emiel KrahmerDepartment of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, 5035 AB, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Tilburg University · NLErasmus MC · NLNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation · NLNXP (Netherlands) · NLUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) 628.001.030
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDecision aids (DAs) support patients in shared decision-making by providing balanced evidence-based treatment information and eliciting patients' preferences. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the quality and communicative aspects of DAs for women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer.

methodsTwenty-one currently available patient DAs were identified through both published literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO) and online sources. The DAs were reviewed for their quality by using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) checklist, and subsequently assessed to what extent they paid attention to various communicative aspects, including (i) information presentation, (ii) personalization, (iii) interaction, (iv) information control, (v) accessibility, (vi) suitability, and (vii) source of information.

resultsThe quality of the DAs varied substantially, with many failing to comply with all components of the IPDAS criteria (mean IPDAS score = 64%, range 31-92%). Five aids (24%) did not include any probability information, 10 (48%) presented multimodal descriptions of outcome probabilities (combining words, numbers, and visual aids), and only 2 (10%) provided personalized treatment outcomes based on patients and tumor characteristics. About half (12; 57%) used interaction methods for eliciting patients' preferences, 16 (76%) were too lengthy, and 5 (24%) were not fully accessible.

conclusionsIn addition to the limited adherence to the IPDAS checklist, our findings suggest that communicative aspects receive even less attention. Future patient DA developments for breast cancer treatment should include communicative aspects that could influence the uptake of DAs in daily clinical practice.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDecision Making, SharedDecision Support TechniquesEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHumansNeoplasm StagingPatient ParticipationPatient PreferencePhysician-Patient RelationsBreast cancerDecision aidsPatient educationRisk communicationShared decision-makingTreatment decision-making

Identifiers

PMID31342311
PMCPMC6790198
OpenAlexW2963336846

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.