Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36002847›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2022

Concordance between influential adverse treatment outcomes and localized prostate cancer treatment decisions.

Rachel A Pozzar, Niya Xiong, Fangxin Hong, Christopher P Filson, Peter Chang, Barbara Halpenny, Donna L Berry

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01844999 (Personal Patient Profile - Prostate), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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.

NCT01844999 nacompletednot on this map

Personal Patient Profile - Prostate (P3P) II: Effectiveness-Implementation Trial in Diverse Health Care Networks

TypeinterventionalSponsorDana-Farber Cancer InstituteRan2013 to 2017Enrolled392ConditionsProstate CancerArmsPersonal Patient Profile - Prostate (P3P), Standard prostate cancer information websites
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Rachel A PozzarDana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA, 02215, USA. rachel_pozzar@dfci.harvard.edu.
Niya XiongDana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Fangxin HongDana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Christopher P FilsonEmory University, 100 Woodruff Circle, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Peter ChangBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Barbara HalpennyDana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Donna L BerryUniversity of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St., Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USEmory University · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Personal Patient Profile-Prostate: Testing and Implementation in Health NetworksR01NR009692 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI BERRY, DONNA L. · 2006 to 2015
$4.0M
NINR NIH HHS R01 NR009692
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer (LPC) are preference-sensitive, the extent to which individuals with LPC receive preference-concordant treatment is unclear. In a sample of individuals with LPC, the purpose of this study was to (a) assess concordance between the influence of potential adverse treatment outcomes and treatment choice; (b) determine whether receipt of a decision aid predicts higher odds of concordance; and (c) identify predictors of concordance from a set of participant characteristics and influential personal factors.

methodsParticipants reported the influence of potential adverse treatment outcomes and personal factors on treatment decisions at baseline. Preference-concordant treatment was defined as (a) any treatment if risk of adverse outcomes did not have a lot of influence, (b) active surveillance if risk of adverse outcomes had a lot of influence, or (c) radical prostatectomy or active surveillance if risk of adverse bowel outcomes had a lot of influence and risk of other adverse outcomes did not have a lot of influence. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression.

resultsOf 224 participants, 137 (61%) pursued treatment concordant with preferences related to adverse treatment outcomes. Receipt of a decision aid did not predict higher odds of concordance. Low tumor risk and age ≥ 60 years predicted higher odds of concordance, while attributing a lot of influence to the impact of treatment on recreation predicted lower odds of concordance.

conclusionsRisk of potential adverse treatment outcomes may not be the foremost consideration of some patients with LPC. Assessment of the relative importance of patients' stated values and preferences is warranted in the setting of LPC treatment decision making. CLINICAL

trial registrationNCT01844999 ( www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ).

Indexed as

Decision MakingProstatic NeoplasmsHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedProstatectomyTreatment OutcomeActive surveillanceDecision aidsDecision makingProstatic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID36002847
PMCPMC9404592
OpenAlexW4293105622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.