Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35319737›Full record

Trial reportJAMA surgery2022

Surgeon Use of Shared Decision-making for Older Adults Considering Major Surgery: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Nathan D Baggett, Kathryn Schulz, Anne Buffington, Nicholas Marka, Bret M Hanlon, Christopher Zimmermann, Jennifer Tucholka, Dan Fox, Justin T Clapp, Robert M Arnold and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02623335 (Navigating High Risk Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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.

NCT02623335 nacompletednot on this map

Navigating High Risk Surgery: Empowering Older Adults to Ask Questions That Inform Decisions About Surgical Treatment

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Wisconsin, MadisonRan2016 to 2018Enrolled446ConditionsCommunicationArmsQPL (question prompt list) brochure
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. "It's Either Have Surgery or Die": How Patients Perceive the Choice to Undergo High-Risk Abdominal Surgery for Cancer.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Values elicitation among surgical oncologists: Findings from an international survey.European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Pitfalls and Traps in the Surgical Evaluation of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS).Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Nathan D BaggettHealthPartners Institute/Regions Hospital Emergency Medicine, St Paul, Minnesota.
Kathryn SchulzUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison.
Anne BuffingtonDepartment of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Nicholas MarkaBiostatistical Design and Analysis Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Bret M HanlonDepartment of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Christopher ZimmermannDepartment of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Jennifer TucholkaDepartment of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Dan FoxFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Justin T ClappDepartment of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Robert M ArnoldSection of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Margaret L SchwarzeDepartment of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Because major surgery carries significant risks for older adults with comorbid conditions, shared decision-making is recommended to ensure patients receive care consistent with their goals. However, it is unknown how often shared decision-making is used for these patients. Objective: To describe the use of shared decision-making during discussions about major surgery with older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of conversations audio recorded during a randomized clinical trial of a question prompt list. Data were collected from June 1, 2016, to November 31, 2018, from 43 surgeons and 446 patients 60 years or older with at least 1 comorbidity at outpatient surgical clinics at 5 academic centers. Interventions: Patients received a question prompt list brochure that contained questions they could ask a surgeon. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 5-domain Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-making (OPTION5) score (range, 0-100, with higher scores indicating greater shared decision-making) was used to measure shared decision-making. Results: A total of 378 surgical consultations were analyzed (mean [SD] patient age, 71.9 [7.2] years; 206 [55%] male; 312 [83%] White). The mean (SD) OPTION5 score was 34.7 (20.6) and was not affected by the intervention. The mean (SD) score in the group receiving the question prompt list was 36.7 (21.2); in the control group, the mean (SD) score was 32.9 (19.9) (effect estimate, 3.80; 95% CI, -0.30 to 8.00; P = .07). Individual surgeon use of shared decision-making varied greatly, with a lowest median score of 10 (IQR, 10-20) to a high of 65 (IQR, 55-80). Lower-performing surgeons had little variation in OPTION5 scores, whereas high-performing surgeons had wide variation. Use of shared decision-making increased when surgeons appeared reluctant to operate (effect estimate, 7.40; 95% CI, 2.60-12.20; P = .003). Although longer conversations were associated with slightly higher OPTION5 scores (effect estimate, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88; P < .001), 57% of high-scoring transcripts were 26 minutes long or less. On multivariable analysis, patient age and gender, patient education, surgeon age, and surgeon gender were not significantly associated with OPTION5 scores. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that although shared decision-making is important to support the preferences of older adults considering major surgery, surgeon use of shared decision-making is highly variable. Skillful shared decision-making can be done in less than 30 minutes; however, surgeons who engage in high-scoring shared decision-making are more likely to do so when surgical intervention is less obviously beneficial for the patient. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02623335.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedSurgeonsAgedCommunicationFemaleHumansMalePatient ParticipationReferral and Consultation

Identifiers

PMID35319737
PMCPMC8943640

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.