Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37782500›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2023

Effectiveness of a Decision Aid Plus Standard Care in Surgical Management Among Patients With Early Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Shalaka Joshi, Lakshmi Ramarajan, Naresh Ramarajan, Serenity S Lee, Ojas Deshpande, Elizabeth Fernandes, Mitchelle Engineer, Gitika Srivastava, Vaibhav Vanmali, Sadhana Kannan and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

17 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Shalaka JoshiDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, and Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Lakshmi RamarajanHarvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Naresh RamarajanNavya Network, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Serenity S LeeThe Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Ojas DeshpandeClinical Research Secretariat, Tata Memorial Centre and Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Elizabeth FernandesClinical Research Secretariat, Tata Memorial Centre and Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Mitchelle EngineerDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, and Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Gitika SrivastavaNavya Network, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Vaibhav VanmaliClinical Research Secretariat, Tata Memorial Centre and Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Sadhana KannanClinical Research Secretariat, Tata Memorial Centre and Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Rohini HawaldarClinical Research Secretariat, Tata Memorial Centre and Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Nita NairDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, and Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Vani ParmarDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, and Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Purvi ThakkarDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, and Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Garvit ChitkaraDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, and Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Sudeep GuptaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, and Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Rajendra BadweDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, and Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Homi Bhabha National Institute · INHarvard University · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Patients with early breast cancer must choose between undergoing breast conservation surgery or mastectomy. This decision is often difficult as there are trade-offs between breast conservation and adverse effects, and women with higher decisional conflict have a harder time choosing the therapy that suits their preferences. Objective: To study the impact of a decision aid with a patient preference assessment tool for surgical decision-making on patients' decisional conflict scale (DCS) score. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 3-group randomized clinical trial was conducted between June 2017 and December 2019 at a single high-volume tertiary care cancer center in Mumbai, India. A research questionnaire comprising 16 questions answered on a Likert scale (from 1, strongly agree, to 5, strongly disagree) was used to measure DCS scores and other secondary psychological variables, with higher scores indicating more decisional conflict. The Navya Patient Preference Tool (Navya-PPT) was developed as a survey-based presentation of evidence in an adaptive, conjoint analysis-based module for and trade-offs between cosmesis, adverse effects of radiotherapy, and cost of mandatory radiation following breast-conserving surgery. Adult patients with histologically proven early breast cancer (cT1-2, N0-1) who were eligible for breast-conserving surgery as per clinicoradiological assessment were included. Those who were pregnant or unable to read the research questionnaire or who had bilateral breast cancer were excluded. Data were analyzed from January to June 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to study groups: standard care including clinical explanation about surgery (control), standard care plus the Navya-PPT provided to the patient alone (solo group), and standard care plus the Navya-PPT provided to the patient and a caregiver (joint group). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point of the study was DCS score. The study was 80% powered with 2-sided α = .01 to detect an effect size of 0.25 measured by Cohen d, F test analysis of variance, and fixed effects. Results: A total of 245 female patients (median [range] age, 48 [23-76] years) were randomized (82 to control, 83 to the solo group, and 80 to the joint group). The median (range) pathological tumor size was 2.5 (0-6) cm. A total of 153 participants (62.4%) had pN0 disease, 185 (75.5%) were hormone receptor positive, 197 (80.4%) were human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative, 144 (58.6%) were of middle or lower socioeconomic status, and 114 (46.5%) had an education level lower than a college degree. DCS score was significantly reduced in the solo group compared with control (1.34 vs 1.66, respectively; Cohen d, 0.50; SD, 0.31; P < .001) and the joint group compared with control (1.31 vs 1.66, respectively; Cohen d, 0.54; SD, 0.31; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study demonstrated lower decisional conflict as measured by DCS score following use of the online, self-administered Navya-PPT among patients with early breast cancer choosing between breast-conserving surgery vs mastectomy. Trial Registration: Clinical Trials Registry of India Identifier: CTRI/2017/11/010480.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsAdultBreastDecision Support TechniquesFemaleHumansMastectomyMiddle AgedPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID37782500
PMCPMC10546236
OpenAlexW4387242128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.