Trial reportClinical oral investigations2023
Impact of two different patient decision aids in prosthodontic consultations: a prospective randomized controlled study.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDifferent approaches to prosthodontic consultation, all involving a strong focus on shared decision-making, were analyzed from the perspective of patients by inter-group comparisons. No patient decision aid (PDA) was used in the control group, a paper-based PDA in test group 1, and a software-based PDA in test group 2. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy-five patients were prospectively randomized to the control group or a test group. All patients then rated the consultation on a questionnaire, six key items of which were analyzed, along with the time spent on each consultation.
resultsOverall satisfaction was highest in test group 2, with a significant difference from the control group (p = 0.015). Test group 2 showed the most favorable ratings for all six questionnaire items, which invariably was significant compared to the control group (p = 0.032). Test group 1 significantly differed from test group 2 based on two items (consultation was adequately intelligible: p = 0.011; consultation was adequately comprehensive: p = 0.034) but not from the control group based on any item (p = 0.070).
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, the use of a software-based PDA, in particular, can be recommended based on patient satisfaction and was associated with the shortest sessions for consultation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patients are routinely faced with a wealth of information in dental offices and may be overwhelmed especially by prosthetic treatment options and decision requirements. Our findings shed some light on the nature of aids that may truly be helpful in the process of shared decision-making.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov.Identifier: ISRCTN11472465.
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.