Trial reportPloS one2020
Evaluating two decision aids for Australian men supporting informed decisions about prostate cancer screening: A randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Shared medical decision in prostate cancer screening in primary care: a systematic literature review of current evidence.International urology and nephrology · 2024Pooled it
- Women's interest, knowledge, and attitudes relating to anti-Mullerian hormone testing: a randomized controlled trial.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Trial
- Development, Co-Design and Pilot Testing of Resources to Support Informed Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening in Australia: A Study Engaging Diverse Communities and Expert Healthcare Professionals.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Exploring shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening within primary health care settings in Portugal: a cross-sectional study.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- How Inclusive Are Patient Decision Aids for People with Limited Health Literacy? An Analysis of Understandability Criteria and the Communication about Options and Probabilities.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Preferences for More or Less Health Care and Association With Health Literacy of Men Eligible for Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening in Australia.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Implementing a patient decision aid, a process evaluation of a large-scale pre- and post-implementation trial.Breast cancer research and treatment · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAustralian clinicians are advised to 'offer evidence-based decisional support to men considering whether or not to have a PSA test'. This randomised trial compared the performance and acceptability of two new decision aids (DAs) to aid men in making informed choices about PSA screening.
methods~3000 Australian men 45-60 years with varying educational attainment were recruited via an online panel and randomised to view one of two online decision aids (one full length, one abbreviated) and completed a questionnaire. The primary outcome was informed choice about PSA screening.
findingsSignificantly more men in the long DA group (38%) made an informed choice than men who received the shorter DA (33%) (95% CI 1.1% to 8.2%; p = 0.008). On knowledge, the long DA group scored, on average, 0.45 points higher than the short DA group (95% CI 0.14 to 0.76; p = 0.004) and 5% more of the participants achieved an adequate knowledge score (95% CI 1.9% to 8.8%; p = 0.002). Men allocated the long DA were less likely to intend to have a PSA test in the future (53%) than men in the short DA group (59%). Both DAs rated highly on acceptability.
conclusionsBoth DAs were useful and acceptable to men regardless of education level and both supported informed decision making. The long version resulted in higher knowledge, and a higher proportion of men able to make an informed choice, but the differences were small. Long DAs may be useful for men whose informational needs are not satisfied by a short DA.
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.