Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32725550›Full record

SynthesisCurrent oncology reports2020

Interventions that Facilitate Shared Decision-Making in Cancers with Active Surveillance as Treatment Option: a Systematic Review of Literature.

G E Collée, B J van der Wilk, J J B van Lanschot, J J Busschbach, L Timmermans, S M Lagarde, L W Kranenburg

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Current oncology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Trends in the Management of Localized Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma in the United States (2000-2018).Thyroid : official journal of the American Thyroid Association · 2022
    Article
  10. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

G E ColléeDepartment of Psychiatry, Section Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
B J van der WilkDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre, Dr. Molewaterplein 40 P.O. Box 2040, Suite Na-2119, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, Netherlands. b.vanderwilk@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-6706-0628
J J B van LanschotDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre, Dr. Molewaterplein 40 P.O. Box 2040, Suite Na-2119, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
J J BusschbachDepartment of Psychiatry, Section Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
L TimmermansDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
S M LagardeDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre, Dr. Molewaterplein 40 P.O. Box 2040, Suite Na-2119, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
L W KranenburgDepartment of Psychiatry, Section Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewMedical decisions concerning active surveillance are complex, especially when evidence on superiority of one of the treatments is lacking. Decision aids have been developed to facilitate shared decision-making on whether to pursue an active surveillance strategy. However, it is unclear how these decision aids are designed and which outcomes are considered relevant. The purpose of this study is to systematically review all decision aids in the field of oncological active surveillance strategies and outcomes used by authors to assess their efficacy. RECENT

findingsA search was performed in Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, PsycINFO Ovid and Google Scholar until June 2019. Eligible studies concerned interventions aiming to facilitate shared decision-making for patients confronted with several treatment alternatives, with active surveillance being one of the treatment alternatives. Twenty-three eligible articles were included. Twenty-one articles included patients with prostate cancer, one with thyroid cancer and one with ovarian cancer. Interventions mostly consisted of an interactive web-based decision aid format. After categorization of outcomes, seven main groups were identified: knowledge, involvement in decision-making, decisional conflict, treatment preference, decision regret, anxiety and health-related outcomes. Although active surveillance has been implemented for several malignancies, interventions that facilitate shared decision-making between active surveillance and other equally effective treatment alternatives are scarce. Future research should focus on developing interventions for malignancies like rectal cancer and oesophageal cancer as well. The efficacy of interventions is mostly assessed using short-term outcomes.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedWatchful WaitingDecision Support TechniquesHumansNeoplasmsActive surveillanceDecision aidShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID32725550
PMCPMC7387328
OpenAlexW3045566877

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.