Let's Require Patients to Review a High-quality Decision Aid Before Receiving Important Tests and Treatments.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Textbook outcomes as a novel patient-centric metric to inform carotid revascularization.Journal of vascular surgery · 2025
   Article
2. Understanding the experiences and perspectives of prenatal screening among a diverse cohort.Prenatal diagnosis · 2023
   Article
3. MAPPinfo - mapping quality of health information: Validation study of an assessment instrument.PloS one · 2023
   Article
4. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: Evidence Update 2.0.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021
   Article
5. Availability and use of number needed to treat (NNT) based decision aids for pharmaceutical interventions.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2021
   Review

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as