ReviewNeuro-oncology practice2020
Shared decision making in high-grade glioma patients-a systematic review.
Review in Neuro-oncology practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Shared decision-making interventions in neuro-oncology practice: a systematic review.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Supramaximal resection in gliomas: a narrative review of surgical techniques, clinical outcomes, and ethical considerations.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Shared Decision-Making for Periodontally Compromised Teeth: Study Protocol for an Ongoing Prospective Multicenter Before-and-After Clinical Trial.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- A scoping review: Understanding brain tumor patients' decisional needs and preferences.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Review
- Survival prediction in glioblastoma: 10-year follow-up from the Dutch Neurosurgery Quality Registry.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Shared decision-making in neuro-oncology: Existing practices and future steps.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Article
- A thematic analysis of shared decision-making in consultations with patients with a presumed brain tumor and neurosurgeons.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Article
- Treatment decision-making and treatment experiences in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Article
- Augmented surgical decision-making for glioblastoma: integrating AI tools into education and practice.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Feeling known and informed: Serial qualitative interviews evaluating a consultation support intervention for patients with high-grade glioma.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Frequency and burden of potentially treatable symptoms in glioma patients with stable disease.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Decisional needs of patients with recurrent high-grade glioma and their families.Neuro-oncology practice · 2022Article
- Development of a Patient Decision Aid to Support Shared Decision Making for Patients with Recurrent High-Grade Glioma.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
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
backgroundShared decision making (SDM) has proven to be a valuable approach in different patient populations when treatment decisions are called for. Along the disease trajectory of high-grade glioma (HGG), patients are presented with a series of treatment decisions. At the same time, HGG patients often experience cognitive deterioration and reduced decision-making capacity. This study aimed to review the current knowledge about shared decision making from the perspective of the HGG patient.
methodsSystematic searches were performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE. Studies were reviewed against the inclusion criteria and assessed for methodological quality. Descriptive data from the included studies were extracted and a narrative synthesis of the findings was performed.
resultsThe searches resulted in 5051 original records. Four studies involving 178 HGG patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The narrative synthesis revealed that most HGG patients in the included studies appreciated an SDM approach and that sufficient information and involvement increased patients' emotional well-being. The use of a patient decision aid showed the potential to increase knowledge, decrease uncertainty, and affect the treatment decision making of HGG patients.
conclusionThe results indicate that many HGG patients prefer an SDM approach and that SDM can lead patients toward improved emotional well-being. The evidence is weak, however, and firm conclusions and practice guidelines concerning SDM in HGG patients cannot be made. Future research is warranted to improve decision support for HGG 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.