Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33991160›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021

Processes for evidence summarization for patient decision aids: A Delphi consensus study.

Peter Scalia, Catherine H Saunders, Michelle Dannenberg, Anik Mc Giguere, Brian S Alper, Tammy Hoffmann, Lilisbeth Perestelo-Perez, Marie-Anne Durand, Glyn Elwyn

Open access · goldAbstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Processes for evidence summarization for patient decision aids: A Delphi consensus study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Peter ScaliaThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5050-435X
Catherine H SaundersThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Michelle DannenbergThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Anik Mc GiguereFaculte de medicine, Universite Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Brian S AlperComputable Publishing LLC, Ipswich, MA, USA.
Tammy HoffmannInstitute of Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia.
Lilisbeth Perestelo-PerezEvaluation Unit of the Canary Islands Health Service. REDISSEC, Tenerife, Spain.
Marie-Anne DurandThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8173-1993
Glyn ElwynThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Dartmouth College · USBond University · AUQuebec Labrador Foundation · USUniversidad Europea de Canarias · ESUniversité Laval · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient decision aids (PDAs) should provide evidence-based information so patients can make informed decisions. Yet, PDA developers do not have an agreed-upon process to select, synthesize and present evidence in PDAs.

objectiveTo reach the consensus on an evidence summarization process for PDAs.

designA two-round modified Delphi survey. SETTING AND

participantsA group of international experts in PDA development invited developers, scientific networks, patient groups and listservs to complete Delphi surveys. DATA COLLECTION: We emailed participants the study description and a link to the online survey. Participants were asked to rate each potential criterion (omit, possible, desirable, essential) and provide qualitative feedback. ANALYSIS: Criteria in each round were retained if rated by >80% of participants as desirable or essential. If two or more participants suggested rewording, reordering or merging, the steering group considered the suggestion.

resultsFollowing two Delphi survey rounds, the evidence summarization process included defining the decision, reporting the processes and policies of the evidence summarization process, assembling the editorial team and managing (collect, manage, report) their conflicts of interest, conducting a systematic search, selecting and appraising the evidence, presenting the harms and benefits in plain language, and describing the method of seeking external review and the plan for updating the evidence (search, selection and appraisal of new evidence).

conclusionA multidisciplinary stakeholder group reached consensus on an evidence summarization process to guide the creation of high-quality PDAs. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: A patient partner was part of the steering group and involved in the development of the Delphi survey.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesResearch DesignDelphi TechniqueHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesDelphievidence-based medicineevidence summarizationpatient decision aidsshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID33991160
PMCPMC8369090
OpenAlexW3163142507

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.