Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33933504›Full record

ArticleUrology2021

Patient Preferences and Treatment Decisions for Prostate Cancer: Results From A Statewide Urological Quality Improvement Collaborative.

Roshan Paudel, Stephanie Ferrante, Ji Qi, Rodney L Dunn, Donna L Berry, Alice Semerjian, Christopher M Brede, Arvin K George, Brian R Lane, Kevin B Ginsburg and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Prostate cancer treatment and the relationship of androgen deprivation therapy to cognitive function.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2022
    Review
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

13 authors.

Roshan PaudelDepartment of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: rpaudel@med.umich.edu.
Stephanie FerranteMichigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, Ann Arbor, MI.
Ji QiMichigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, Ann Arbor, MI.
Rodney L DunnMichigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, Ann Arbor, MI.
Donna L BerryBiobehavioral Nursing and Health Informatics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Alice SemerjianMichigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, Ann Arbor, MI; IHA Urology, St. Joseph Mercy Health System, Ypsilanti, MI.
Christopher M BredeSpectrum Health, Grand Rapids, MI.
Arvin K GeorgeMichigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Brian R LaneSpectrum Health, Grand Rapids, MI.
Kevin B GinsburgDepartment of Urology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI; Department of Surgical Oncology, Division of Urologic Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
James E MontieMichigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Giulia I LaneDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative

Funding

Improving urinary and sexual dysfunction after prostate surgery using shared decision makingF32DK126232 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI IPPOLITO, GIULIA MARIA ROSA · 2020 to 2021
$83k
NIDDK NIH HHS F32 DK126232
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine the relationship between influential factors and treatment decisions among men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa).

methodsWe identified men in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry diagnosed with localized PCa between 2018-2020 who completed Personal Patient Profile-Prostate. We analyzed the proportion of active surveillance (AS) between men who stated future bladder, bowel, and sexual problems (termed influential factors) had "a lot of influence" on their treatment decisions versus other responses. We also assessed the relationship between influential factors, confirmatory testing results and choice of AS.

resultsA total of 509 men completed Personal Patient Profile-Prostate. Treatment decisions aligned with influential factors for 88% of men with favorable risk and 49% with unfavorable risk PCa. A higher proportion of men who identified bladder, bowel and sexual concerns as having "a lot of influence" on their treatment decision chose AS, compared with men with other influential factors, although not statistically significant (44% vs 35%, P = .11). Similar results were also found when men were stratified based on PCa risk groups (favorable risk: 78% vs 67%; unfavorable risk: 17% vs 9%, respectively). Despite a small sample size, a higher proportion of men with non-reassuring confirmatory testing selected AS if influential factors had "a lot of influence" compared to "no influence" on their treatment decisions.

conclusionMen's concerns for future bladder, bowel, and sexual function problems, as elicited by a decision aid, may help explain treatment selection that differs from traditional clinical recommendation.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPatient PreferenceQuality ImprovementAgedHumansMaleMichiganMiddle AgedProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID33933504
PMCPMC8429102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.