Trial reportDeutsches Arzteblatt international2024
An Online Decision Aid for Patients With Metastatic Melanoma—Results of the Randomized Controlled Trial “PEF-Immun”.
Trial report in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patient Orientation and Shared Decision- Making-Implementing Patients' Rights in Routine Clinical Practice.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment decisions in metastatic melanoma (MM) are highly dependent on patient preferences and require the patients' involvement. The complexity of treatment options with their individual advantages and disadvantages is often overwhelming. We therefore developed an online patient decision aid (PtDA) to facilitate shared decision making (SDM).
methodsTo evaluate the PtDA we conducted a two-armed, twocenter, prospective, open randomized controlled trial with MM patients who were facing a decision about first-line treatment. The patients were allotted randomly in a 1:1 ratio to an intervention group (IG) with access to the PtDA before discussion with a physician or to a control group (CG) without access to the PtDA. The primary endpoint was knowledge about the options for first-line treatment (multiple-choice test, 10 items, range 0-40 points). The secondary endpoints were the SDM (third-party ratings of audio recordings of the treatment discussions) and satisfaction with the decision at the follow-up visit.
resultsOf the 128 randomized patients, 120 completed the baseline questionnaire and were analyzed (59% male, median age 66 years). The primary endpoint, i.e., the mean difference in knowledge after discussion with a physician, differed significantly between the IG and the CG (-3.22, 95% CI [-6.32; -0.12], p = 0.042). No differences were found for the secondary endpoints, SDM and satisfaction with the decision. The patients in the IG rated the PtDA as very useful.
conclusionThe PtDA improved the knowledge of patients with MM about the options for treatment. Both groups were highly satisfied with their treatment decisions. However, additional physician training seems necessary to promote SDM.
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.