SynthesisBMJ open2021
Communication in decision aids for stage I-III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Numbers call for action, personalized narratives provide support and recognition": a qualitative assessment of cancer patients' perspectives on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) feedback with narratives.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- Mapping the quality of Norwegian health information -Does it facilitate informed choices?PloS one · 2026Article
- Patients' perspectives and the perceptions of healthcare providers in the treatment of early rectal cancer; a qualitative study.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Article
- Need for numbers: assessing cancer survivors' needs for personalized and generic statistical information.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- The Role of Shared Decision-Making in Personalised Medicine: Opening the Debate.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Communicating tailored risk information of cancer treatment side effects: Only words or also numbers?BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the communicative quality of colorectal cancer patient decision aids (DAs) about treatment options, the current systematic review was conducted.
designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: DAs (published between 2006 and 2019) were identified through academic literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO) and online sources. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: DAs were only included if they supported the decision-making process of patients with colon, rectal or colorectal cancer in stages I-III. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: After the search strategy was adapted from similar systematic reviews and checked by a colorectal cancer surgeon, two independent reviewers screened and selected the articles. After initial screening, disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. The review was conducted in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DAs were assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and Communicative Aspects (CA) checklist.
resultsIn total, 18 DAs were selected. Both the IPDAS and CA checklist revealed that there was a lot of variation in the (communicative) quality of DAs. The findings highlight that (1) personalisation of treatment information in DAs is lacking, (2) outcome probability information is mostly communicated verbally and (3) information in DAs is generally biased towards a specific treatment. Additionally, (4) DAs about colorectal cancer are lengthy and (5) many DAs are not written in plain language.
conclusionsBoth instruments (IPDAS and CA) revealed great variation in the (communicative) quality of colorectal cancer DAs. Developers of patient DAs should focus on personalisation techniques and could use both the IPDAS and CA checklist in the developmental process to ensure personalised health communication and facilitate shared decision making 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.