Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37214512›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2023

Navigating the uncertainty of precision cancer screening: The role of shared decision-making.

Joseph H Gallagher, Jason L Vassy, Marla L Clayman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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 25% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Joseph H GallagherVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, United States of America.
Jason L VassyCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), Veterans Health Administration, Bedford MA and Boston MA, United States.
Marla L ClaymanCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), Veterans Health Administration, Bedford MA and Boston MA, United States.
Harvard University · USUniversity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · USVirginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Describe how applying a shared decision making (SDM) lens to the implementation of new technologies can improve patient-centeredness. Methods: This paper argues that the emergence of polygenic risk scores (PRS) for cancer screening presents an illustrative opportunity to include SDM when novel technologies enter clinical care. Results: PRS are novel tools that indicate an individual's genetic risk of a given disease relative to the population. PRS are anticipated to help identify individuals most and least likely to benefit from screening. However, PRS have several types of uncertainty, including validity across populations, disparate computational methods, and inclusion of different genomic data across laboratories. Conclusion: Implementing SDM alongside new technologies could prove useful for their ethical and patient-centered utilization. SDM's importance as an approach to decision-making will not diminish, as evidence, uncertainty, and patient values will remain intrinsic to the art and science of clinical care. Innovation: SDM can help providers and patients navigate the considerable uncertainty inherent in implementing new technologies, enabling decision-making based on existing evidence and patient values.

Indexed as

Cancer screeningGenetic counselingGenomic testingPatient-provider communicationPolygenic risk scoresShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID37214512
PMCPMC10194244
OpenAlexW4317938052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.