SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2023
Interventions to Facilitate Shared Decision-Making Using Decision Aids with Coronary Heart Disease Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Comparison of a Customized Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD)-Specific Generative AI Chatbot and General-Purpose AI Chatbots for PAD Patient Education.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Developing and assessing acceptability of a shared decision-making tool for selecting among HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis options in the United States of America.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- The impact of shared decision making on transitional preparation in children with recurrent pneumonia.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Shared Decision-Making: The More the Patient Knows, the Better the Decision that Is Made.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
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
Background: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death in the world. There are some decision-making conflicts in the management of chest pain, treatment methods, stent selection, and other aspects due to the unstable condition of CHD in the treatment stage. Although using decision aids to facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) contributes to high-quality decision-making, it has not been evaluated in the field of CHD. This review systematically assessed the effects of SDM in patients with CHD. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of SDM interventions in patients with CHD from database inception to 1 June 2022 (PROSPERO [Unique identifier: CRD42022338938]). We searched for relevant studies in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wan Fang databases. The primary outcomes were knowledge and decision conflict. The secondary outcomes were satisfaction, patient participation, trust, acceptance, quality of life, and psychological condition. Results: A total of 8244 studies were retrieved. After screening, ten studies were included in the analysis. Compared with the control group, SDM intervention with patient decision aids obviously improved patients' knowledge, decision satisfaction, participation, and medical outcomes and reduced decision-making conflict. There was no significant effect of SDM on trust. Conclusions: This study showed that SDM intervention in the form of decision aids was beneficial to decision-making quality and treatment outcomes among patients with CHD. The results of SDM interventions need to be evaluated in different environments.
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.