SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2024
Shared medical decision in prostate cancer screening in primary care: a systematic literature review of current evidence.
Synthesis in International urology and nephrology, 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeProstate cancer screening has not significantly reduced mortality. International guidelines strongly endorse shared decision-making to navigate risks, emphasizing its crucial role prior to prescribing a prostate-specific antigen test. This study aims to provide insight into the current role of shared decision-making in primary care for prostate cancer screening and suggest ways to improve the process.
methodsPubMed, Cochrane, and Lissa databases were searched for following terms: 'prostate-specific antigen' or 'prostate cancer screening' combined with 'shared decision making', 'informed decision making' or 'decision support' and 'primary care'. All studies were screened by two independent reviewers. This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines.
resultsOf 85 articles screened, 34 were included. Key findings included heterogenous and poor quality implementation of shared decision-making in practice, patients with limited knowledge of shared decision-making, clinicians infrequently discussing patients' views, decision aids that could be better integrated into practice, and finally, changes in care systems to support the expansion of shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening.
conclusionDecision aids are essential tools in the informed decision-making process. Integrating these elements into practice would require training for doctors and adjustments to the healthcare system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38316684What 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.