Trial reportAnnals of surgical oncology2019
A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Impact of Pre-Consultation Information on Patients' Perception of Information Conveyed and Satisfaction with the Decision-Making Process.
Trial report in Annals of surgical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of Decision Aids for Shared Decision-Making for Patients with Early Stage Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluate the effectiveness of breast cancer decision aids: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomize clinical trails.Nursing open · 2021Pooled it
- Applied techniques for putting pre-visit planning in clinical practice to empower patient-centered care in the pandemic era: a systematic review and framework suggestion.BMC health services research · 2021Pooled it
- How Women Discuss Heavy Menstrual Bleeding in Online Forums ("It's Like Revenge of the Uterus"): Template Approach to Thematic Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- The Implementation of Shared Decision-Making Using Patient Decision Aid Tools to Select Breast Cancer Treatment Options: A Systematic Review in the Time of Minimum Quality Standards.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Patient focused interventions and communication in the surgical clinic: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- Digital Health Interventions for Adult Patients With Cancer Evaluated in Randomized Controlled Trials: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
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
Abstract
backgroundPatient participation in treatment decision-making is a health care priority. This study hypothesized that providing a decision aid before surgical consultation would better prepare patients for decision-making. The objective was to examine the impact of a decision aid versus high-quality websites on patients' perceptions of information conveyed during surgical consultation and satisfaction with the decision process.
methodsPatients with stages 0 to 3 breast cancer were randomized. Surveys assessed perceptions of information conveyed, being asked surgical preference, and satisfaction with the decision process. Multivariable logistic regression assessed associations between outcomes and randomization arm, patient factors, and surgeon. Change in Pseudo-R
resultsThe median patient age was 59 years. Most of the patients (98%) were white, and 62% were college educated (n = 201). The findings showed no association between randomization arm and perceptions of information conveyed, being asked surgical preference, or satisfaction with the decision process. Most of the patients reported discussing both breast-conserving therapy and mastectomy (69%) and being asked their surgical preference (65%). The surgeon seen was more important than the randomization arm or the patient factors in predicting patients' perceptions of information conveyed (explained 64-69% of the variation), and 63% of the patients were satisfied with the decision process.
conclusionUse of a decision aid compared with high-quality websites did not increase patients' perceptions of information conveyed or satisfaction with the decision process. Although the surgeon seen influenced aspects of the patient experience, the surgeon was not associated with satisfaction. Understanding the factors driving low satisfaction is critical because this is increasingly used as a marker of health care quality.
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.