Trial reportUrology2022
Two Specialists, Two Recommendations: Discordance Between Urologists' & Radiation Oncologists' Prostate Cancer Treatment Recommendations.
Trial report in Urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02053389 (Promoting Shared Decision Making in Prostate Cancer Through Decision Aids), which is not on this 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.
Promoting Shared Decision Making in Prostate Cancer Through Decision Aids
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proton Therapy in the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer in Young Men.International journal of particle therapy · 2026Article
- Association between author specialty and reported outcomes in non-randomized comparisons of prostatectomy versus radiation.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2026Article
- Effect of Age on Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes: A Multi-center Analysis.Urology · 2025Article
- Factors Guiding Clinical Decision-Making in Genitourinary Oncology.Cancer medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the treatment recommendation patterns among urologists and radiation oncologists, the level of concordance or discordance between physician recommendations, and the association between physician recommendations and the treatment that patients received.
methodThe study was a secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial conducted November 2010 to April 2014 (NCT02053389). Eligible participants were patients from the trial who saw both specialists. The primary outcome was physician recommendations that were scored using an adapted version of the validated PhyReCS coding system. Secondary outcomes included concordance between physician recommendations and the treatment patients received.
resultsParticipants were 108 patients (Mean age 61.9 years; range 43-82; 87% non-Hispanic White). Urologists were more likely to recommend surgery (79% of recommendations) and radiation oncologists were more likely to recommend radiation (68% of recommendations). Recommendations from the urologists and radiation oncologists were concordant for only 33 patients (30.6%). Most patients received a treatment that both physicians recommended (59%); however, 35% received a treatment that only one of their physicians recommended. When discordant, urologists more often recommended surgery and radiation oncologists recommended radiation and surgery as equally appropriate options.
conclusionUrologists and radiation oncologists are more likely to differ than agree in their treatment recommendations for the same patients with clinically localized prostate cancer and more likely to favor treatment aligned with their specialty. Additional studies are needed to better understand how patients make decisions after meeting with two different specialists to inform the development of best practices within oncology clinics.
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.