ReviewHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2020
Covering patient's perspective in case-based critical review articles to improve shared decision making in complex cases.
Review in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Comparative Educational Intervention Study of Peer Teaching and Flipped Classroom Models in Pediatric Intensive Care Rotation.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- "I Just Need Proper Treatment": Being Hospitalized for Endocarditis among Individuals Who Inject Drugs Being Hospitalized for Endocarditis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- The Bridge Building Model: connecting evidence-based practice, evidence-based research, public involvement and needs led research.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Review
- Reconciling evidence and experience in the context of evidence-based practice.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2021Article
- Covering patient's perspective in case-based critical review articles to improve shared decision making in complex cases.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Review
- Relationships and Communication-the core components of person-centred care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe patient has always been at the centre of the evidence-based medicine model. Case-based critical reviews, such as best-evidence topics, however, are incomplete reflections of the evidence-based medicine philosophy, because they fail to consider the patient's perspective. We propose a new framework, called the 'Shared Decision Evidence Summary' (ShaDES), where the patient's perspective on available treatment options is explicitly included.
methodsOur framework is grounded in the critical appraisal of a clinical scenario, and the development of a clinical question, including patient characteristics, compared options and outcomes to be improved. Answers to the clinical question are informed by the literature, the evaluation of its quality and its potential usefulness to the clinical scenario. Finally, the evidence synthesis is presented to the patient to facilitate the formulation of an evidence-informed decision about the treatment options. KEY
resultsUsing three similar but contrasted clinical scenarios of patients with low back pain, we illustrate how considering the patient's preferences on the proposed treatment options impact the bottom line, a synthetic formulation of the answer to the focused question. ShaDES includes clinical and psychosocial components, transformed in a searchable question, with a full search strategy.
conclusionsShaDES is a practical framework that may facilitate clinical decisions adapted to psychological, social and other relevant non-clinical characteristics of patients.
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.