Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33159220›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021

A novel decision aid for acute myeloid leukemia: a feasibility and preliminary efficacy trial.

Jordan D Hildenbrand, Debra M Davis, Areej El-Jawahri, Kris W Herring, Susan C Locke, Kathryn I Pollak, Gregory P Samsa, Karen E Steinhauser, Jesse D Troy, Peter A Ubel and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03442452 (A Pilot Feasibility and Preliminary Efficacy Study of an Electronic Decision Aid for Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia), which is not on this 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03442452 nacompletednot on this map

A Pilot Feasibility and Preliminary Efficacy Study of an Electronic Decision Aid for Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)

TypeinterventionalSponsorDuke UniversityRan2018 to 2019Enrolled20ConditionsAcute Myeloid LeukemiaArmsElectronic Decision Aid Tool
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

11 authors.

Jordan D HildenbrandDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8462-7262
Debra M DavisDuke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Areej El-JawahriMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Kris W HerringDuke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Susan C LockeDuke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Kathryn I PollakDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Gregory P SamsaDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Karen E SteinhauserDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Jesse D TroyDuke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Peter A UbelSanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Thomas W LeblancDuke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. thomas.leblanc@duke.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0546-7895

Funding

American Cancer Society MRSG-15-185-01-PCSM
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAcute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a hematologic malignancy characterized by a poor prognosis but also a paradoxical possibility of cure. This renders decision-making complex and imminent. Unfortunately, many patients with AML misestimate their prognosis and treatment risk. While decision aids can improve illness understanding and reduce decisional conflict, there are no validated decision aids for AML. We developed and tested a novel AML decision aid (NCT03442452).

methodsPatients (n = 20) were recruited at Duke University from May 2018 to February 2019. Participants completed assessments of AML knowledge and decisional conflict, before and after using the electronic decision aid. The primary endpoint was feasibility (endpoint met if > 80% of study participants completed all study components). Secondary analyses of efficacy were conducted using paired t tests for dependent pre-/post-samples.

resultsThe primary endpoint of feasibility was met (100% of participants completed all study components). Secondary analyses showed improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict after using the decision aid. Knowledge scores improved from a mean of 11.8 (out of 18) correct items at baseline to 15.1 correct items after using the decision aid (mean difference 3.35; p < 0.0001). Decisional conflict scores reduced significantly from baseline to post-test as well (mean difference - 6.5; p = 0.02).

conclusionThese findings suggest that our AML decision aid is a useful tool to improve the patient experience and promote shared decision-making in AML. A randomized efficacy trial is planned.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeDecision MakingFemaleHumansKnowledgeLeukemia, Myeloid, AcuteMaleMiddle AgedAcute myeloid leukemiaAMLDecision aidPrognostic understandingShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID33159220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.