Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2024. 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
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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 8 institutions in 5 countries.
Shakira R OnwukaCentre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne; Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne; Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8510-6351
Jennifer McIntoshCentre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne; Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne; Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6655-0940
Finlay MacraeColorectal Medicine and Genetics, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia; Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4035-9678
Patty ChondrosDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0393-8734
Lucy BoydCentre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne; Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8287-6978
Rushani WijesuriyaClinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Australia; Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1023-4065
Sibel SayaCentre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne; Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4796-6852
Napin KarnchanachariCentre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne; Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Kitty NovyCentre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne; Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Mark A JenkinsNational Health and Medical Research Council Professorial Fellow, cancer epidemiologist, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8964-6160
Fiona M WalterWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; professor of primary care cancer research, Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7191-6476
Lyndal TrevenaPrimary Health Care, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1419-1832
Javiera Martinez GutierrezCentre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne; Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Medicine, Family Medicine Department, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.ORCID 0000-0002-2493-9974
Kate BrounPrevention Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
George FishmanPC4 Joint Community Advisory Group, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Julie MarkerPC4 Joint Community Advisory Group, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Jon EmeryCentre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne; Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5274-6336
The University of Melbourne · AUAdvisory Board Company (United States) · USCancer Council Victoria · AUMurdoch Children's Research Institute · AUPontificia Universidad Católica de Chile · CLQueen Mary University of London · GBThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUThe University of Sydney · AU
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
6 · The paper itself
Abstract
backgroundAustralian guidelines recommend that people aged 50-70 years consider taking low-dose aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer (CRC).
aimTo determine the effect of a consultation with a researcher before an appointment in general practice using a decision aid presenting the benefits and harms of taking low-dose aspirin compared with a general CRC prevention brochure on patients' informed decision making and low-dose aspirin use. DESIGN AND
settingIndividually randomised controlled trial in six general practices in Victoria, Australia, from October 2020 to March 2021.
methodParticipants were recruited from a consecutive sample of patients aged 50-70 years attending a GP. The intervention was a consultation using a decision aid to discuss taking aspirin to reduce CRC risk while control consultations discussed reducing CRC risk generally. Self-reported co-primary outcomes were the proportion of individuals making informed choices about taking aspirin at 1 month and on low-dose aspirin uptake at 6 months, respectively. The intervention effect was estimated using a generalised linear model and reported with Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and
resultsA total of 261 participants (86% of eligible patients) were randomised into trial arms (
conclusionThe decision aid improved informed decision making but this did not translate into long-term regular use of aspirin to reduce CRC risk. In future research, decision aids should be delivered alongside various implementation strategies.
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.
Should I Take Aspirin? (SITA): randomised controlled trial of a decision aid for cancer chemoprevention. · full record | OpenQuestion