ArticleClinical and translational science2021
What men want: Results from a national survey on decision making for prostate cancer treatment and research participation.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influences on clinical trial participation: Enhancing recruitment through a gender lens - A scoping review.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2024Article
- Prostate volume, baseline urinary function, and their association with treatment choice and post-treatment urinary function in men treated for localized prostate cancer.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2023Article
- Understanding what matters to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients when considering treatment options: A US patient preference survey.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- What men want: Results from a national survey on decision making for prostate cancer treatment and research participation.Clinical and translational science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data comparing outcomes in prostate cancer and factors affecting treatment choice are sparse. To inform the design of a comparative effectiveness clinical trial, we engaged patients in developing a 28-question survey about decision making on treatment and research participation and dispersed it among men greater than or equal to 50 years of age. The 1046 respondents ranked long-term clinical outcomes as most important in making treatment decisions, specific functional outcomes as slightly less important, and duration, location, and cost of treatment as least important. Treatment choice was strongly impacted by side effect profile. Responses to whether the subject would agree to participation in a randomized trial between two types of radiation with minimal differences in outcomes were "yes" in 15%, "no" in 39%, and "undecided" in 46%. Responses to whether the subject would agree to participation in a randomized trial between two treatment durations with similar outcomes were yes in 36%, no in 24%, and undecided in 40%. Findings suggest many potential patients have strong treatment preferences and are averse to randomization, particularly when outcomes of importance may be affected. Patient engagement in study design and novel nonrandomized trial designs may offer a path to increase clinical trial success.
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.