Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34686942›Full record

Trial reportHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2022

Randomized control trial evaluating the use of a shared decision-making aid for older ventral hernia patients in the Geriatric Assessment and Medical Preoperative Screening (GrAMPS) Program.

B S Kushner, T Holden, B Han, M Sehnert, A Majumder, J A Blatnik, S E Holden

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Advances, Overuse, and Shared Decision-Making in Abdominal Wall Surgery.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2025
    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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

B S KushnerDepartment of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8109, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA. B.kushner@wustl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7360-7642
T HoldenDepartment of Medicine, Division of Geriatrics and Nutritional Science, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8109, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
B HanDepartment of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8109, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
M SehnertDepartment of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8109, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
A MajumderDepartment of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8109, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
J A BlatnikDepartment of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8109, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
S E HoldenDepartment of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8109, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Washington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeShared decision making (SDM) is ideally suited to abdominal wall surgery in older adults given the breadth of decision making required by the hernia surgeon and the impact on quality of life (QOL) by various treatment options. Given the paucity of literature surrounding SDM in hernia patients, the feasibility of a novel, formalized SDM aid/tool was evaluated in a pilot randomized trial.

methodsPatients 60 years or older with a diagnosed ventral hernia were prospectively randomized at an academic hernia center. In the experimental arm, a novel SDM tool, based on the SHARE Approach, guided the consultation. Previously validated SDM assessments and patient's hernia knowledge retention was measured.

resultsEighteen (18) patients were randomized (9 control and 9 experimental). Cohorts were well matched in age (p = 0.51), comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Score: p = 0.43) and frailty (mFI-11: p = 0.19; Risk Analysis Index: p = 0.33). Consultation time was 11 min longer in the experimental cohort (p < 0.01). There was a trend towards better Decisional Conflict Scores in the experimental group (p = 0.25) and the experimental cohort had improved post-visit retained hernia knowledge (p < 0.01). All patients in the experimental arm (100%) enjoyed working through the SDM aid/tool and felt it was a worthwhile exercise.

conclusionIncorporating a formalized SDM tool into a busy hernia surgical practice is feasible and well received by patients. In addition, early results suggest it improves retention of basic hernia knowledge and may reduce patient's decisional conflict. Next steps include condensing the SDM tool to enhance efficiency within the clinic and beginning a large, randomized control trial.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedHernia, VentralAgedDecision MakingGeriatric AssessmentHerniorrhaphyHumansQuality of LifeAgeFrailtyGeriatric syndromesInguinal herniaMild cognitive impairmentShared decision makingVentral hernias

Identifiers

PMID34686942
OpenAlexW3206927365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.