ArticlePacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2021
Development of a measure of decision quality for implantable defibrillators.
Article in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experiences Implementing a Suite of Decision Aids for Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: Qualitative Insights From the DECIDE-ICD Trial.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2022Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCMS reimbursement guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) include mandated shared decision making (SDM), but without any manner of assessing the quality of decisions made. We developed and tested a scale meant to assess patients' knowledge of and preferences specific to ICDs. Such a tool would assess these constructs in the clinical environment, targeting resources and support for patients considering a primary prevention ICD.
methodsDevelopment of the ICD decision quality (ICD-DQ) scale included (1) item creation, (2) content validation using surveys of patients (n = 23) and clinicians (n = 31), and (3) examination of validity and reliability using a survey of patients who previously received an ICD (n = 295, response rate = 72%).
resultsThe final scale consists of 12 knowledge and 8 preference items. With respect to content validity, clinician and patient respondents agreed on the importance of 19 of 24 candidate knowledge items (79%), and 9 of 11 treatment preference items (81%). Knowledge items exhibited moderate internal validity (α = 0.62, 1 factor), strong test-retest reliability (mean % correct at first administration = 59%, 62% at follow-up, P > .1) and discriminant validity (59% correct for patients, 93% among cardiologists). Short versions of the ICD-DQ were developed for clinical settings, the scores from both of which correlated with the long version in this cohort (11-item (r = 0.90) and a 5-item (r = 0.75)).
conclusionsThe ICD-DQ fills a critical gap in measuring the quality of patients' ICD decisions. They may be used to evaluate the effectiveness of patient decision aids or the quality of SDM in clinical practice.
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.