Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35705344›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Designing and evaluating a patient decision aid for patients with locally advanced or locally recurrent rectal cancer: a national multicentre mixed methods study protocol.

Anwen Williams, Hayley Anne Hutchings, Dean Anthony Harris, Martyn Evans, Deena Harji

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Shared decision-making in radiotherapy for rectal cancer - A systematic review.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026
    Review
  3. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anwen WilliamsDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Swansea University Health Board, Swansea, UK anwen.williams3@wales.nhs.uk.
Hayley Anne HutchingsThe School of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4155-1741
Dean Anthony HarrisDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Swansea University Health Board, Swansea, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2673-8946
Martyn EvansDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Swansea University Health Board, Swansea, UK.
Deena HarjiManchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, Greater Manchester, UK.
Swansea Bay University Health Board · GBManchester University NHS Foundation Trust · GBSwansea University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionApproximately 5%-10% of new rectal cancers are locally advanced (locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC)) at presentation with 4%-8% recurring (locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC)) after initial treatment. Patients with potentially curable disease have to consider many trade-offs when considering major exenterative surgery. There are no decision tools for these patients and current resources have found to not meet minimum international standards. The overall aim of this study is to produce a validated patient decision aid (PtDA) to assist patients considering radical pelvic exenteration for LARC and LRRC created in line with international minimum standards. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a national, multicentre mixed methods project and has been designed in keeping with guidance from the International Patient Decision Aids Standard.This study is in four stages. In stage 1, we will develop the PtDA and its content using agile developmental methodology. In stage 2, we will assess the content and face validity of the PtDA using mixed-methods with key stakeholders. In stage 3, we will assess the feasibility and efficacy of the PtDA. In stage 4, we will establish the barriers and facilitators to the use of a PtDA in the outpatient setting. Questionnaires including the QQ-10, EORTC PATSAT-C33, Preparation for Decision-Making Scale and the NoMAD survey will be analysed during the study. Interviews will be analysed using thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval from North of Scotland Research Ethics Service 19/NS/0056 (IRAS 257890) has been granted. Results will be published in open access peer-reviewed journals, presented in conferences and distributed through bowel research UK charity. External endorsement will be sought from the International Patient Decision Standards Collaboration inventory of PtDAs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019122933.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesRectal NeoplasmsDecision MakingHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicRectumSurveys and Questionnairesadult oncologyadult surgerycolorectal surgeryinformation management

Identifiers

PMID35705344
PMCPMC9204455
OpenAlexW4282965935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.