ReviewNature reviews. Urology2022
Shared decision-making in urology and female pelvic floor medicine and reconstructive surgery.
Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-Hysterectomy Vaginal Vault Prolapse: Current Perspectives and Decision-Making Considerations for Surgical Treatment.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Shared decision-making among patients undergoing surgery for pelvic floor dysfunction: a cross-sectional study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Patient health literacy and cognitive impairment surveys highlight barriers to patient-provider communication.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Patient preferences and attitudes regarding the environmental impact of medicines: A discrete choice experiment.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Do We Have Sufficient Evidence to Derive Innovative Approaches to Assessing Unmet Need, Delivering Education on Bladder and Bowel Continence Health, and Providing a Better Environment for Joint Decision-Making? ICI-RS 2024.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2025Article
- Article
- Heavy as a rock or light as dust: a comparison between the perceived workload for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy.Central European journal of urology · 2024Article
- Research Progress of Shared Decision-Making in Schizophrenia with Anxiety.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2024Review
- Motivations, psychosocial burdens, and decision-making modes of post-partum women with stress urinary incontinence engaging in pelvic floor physical therapy: a qualitative research.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Shared decision-making (SDM) is a hallmark of patient-centred care that uses informed consent to help guide patients with making complex health-care decisions. In SDM, patients and providers work together to determine the best course of action based on both the current available evidence and the patient's values and preferences. SDM not only provides a framework for the legal and ethical obligations providers need to fulfil for informed consent, but also leads to improved knowledge of treatment options and satisfaction of decision-making for patients. Tools such as decision aids have been developed to support SDM for complex decisions. Several decision aids are available for use in the field of urology and female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, but these decision aids are also associated with barriers to SDM implementation including patient, provider and systematic challenges. However, solutions to such barriers to SDM include continued development of SDM tools to improve patient engagement, expand training of providers in SDM communication models and a process to encourage implementation of SDM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34931058What 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.