SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021
Web-based decision aids for cancer clinical decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effects of Decision Aids on Decision Knowledge, Conflict, and Satisfaction Among Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of nursing management · 2026Pooled it
- Assessing the Content and Effect of Web-Based Decision Aids for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Decision-support tools via mobile devices to improve quality of care in primary healthcare settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Effects of a smartphone application named "Shared Decision Making Assistant" for informed patients with primary liver cancer in decision-making in China: a quasi-experimental study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Trial
- Latent profiles of self-advocacy and their relationship with fear of progression, family resilience, and cognitive emotion regulation among male patients with liver cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Social Media as a Platform for Cancer Care Decision-Making Among Women: Internet Survey-Based Study on Trust, Engagement, and Preferences.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- A Qualitative Exploration of Stakeholders' Preferences for Early-Stage Rectal Cancer Treatment.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2023Article
- Understanding how shared decision-making approaches and patient aids influence patients with advanced cancer when deciding on palliative treatments and care: A realist review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Review
- Decision Aids in the ICU: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Patient feedback receiving care using a shared decision making tool for thyroid nodule evaluation-an observational study.Endocrine · 2023Observational
- Testing the effects of the Strong Together self-advocacy serious game among women with advanced cancer: Protocol for the STRONG randomized clinical trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2023Article
- Women's perceptions of PERSPECTIVE: a breast cancer risk stratification e-platform.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2022Article
- A scoping review of interactive and personalized web-based clinical tools to support treatment decision making in breast cancer.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2022Article
- Self-administered digital vaccination decision-aids in primary care: A pilot study of COVID-19 vaccination in Atlanta, GA.Digital healthArticle
- Article
- A Scoping Review of Personalized, Interactive, Web-Based Clinical Decision Tools Available for Breast Cancer Prevention and Screening in the United States.MDM policy & practiceArticle
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
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of web-based decision aids (WDAs) on cancer-related clinical care in terms of different decision categories and by different cancer types.
methodsLiterature retrieval utilized highly inclusive algorithms searching randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library and manual searching of eligible studies from reference lists of relevant articles. Two researchers examined the articles selected separately and extracted the information about the studies (e.g., decision category, sample sizes, and outcome indicators) using a data-extracting form and performed risk of bias assessment of the included studies with Begg's test, Egger's test, and Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Meta-analysis of the pooled effects of WDAs on outcome indicators was performed via Review Manager 5.2.
resultsA total of 24 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, involving 9846 participants. Overall meta-analysis revealed statistically significant effects on cancer decisional conflict, knowledge, and making informed choice with the overall effect sizes being -0.29 (standardized mean difference, SMD), 0.47 (SMD), and 1.92 (risk ratio, RR) respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed significant effects in indicators including decisional conflict, knowledge, satisfaction, participation in decision-making, and screening behavior, though some extent of heterogeneity and quality flaws existed among the included studies.
conclusionsAlthough our research results showed evidence of WDA effects on certain outcome indicators of cancer decisions, these results should be interpreted with caution given the heterogeneity and quality flaws. It is still premature to conclude whether WDA was effective in optimizing cancer clinical decision-making, and more efforts are needed in this area. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020218991.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33834302What 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.