ArticleScientific reports2024
Clinical decision making in prostate cancer care-evaluation of EAU-guidelines use and novel decision support software.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment-Free Survival and the Pattern of Follow-Up Treatments After Curative Prostate Cancer Treatment, a Real-World Analysis of Big Data from Electronic Health Records from a Tertiary Center.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Monitoring prostate cancer under androgen-deprivation therapy: insights from the implementation of a clinical decision support system dashboard.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Keeping up to date with the latest clinical advances in prostate cancer can be challenging. We investigated the impact of guideline use on quality of treatment decisions as well as the impact of a novel, CE-certified clinical decision support tool (Siemens AIPC software) on the amount of time clinicians spend on decision-making in a multicenter setting. Ten urologists assessed ten clinical cases (screening and localized prostate cancer) in three settings: without support, using a digital version of the EAU guidelines, and with the AIPC tool, resulting in 300 clinical decisions. Comparison involved time spent, decision correct- and completeness. Using AIPC compared to digital guidelines led to a significant reduction of expenditure of time at a per case level (3.57 min and 0:14 min, p < 0.01) and for overall time per urologist (39.45 min and 02:20 min, p < 0.01). Decision options without guidelines support, online guideline usage and usage of AIPC were complete in 61%, 80% and 100%, respectively (p < 0.01). Decision making without guidelines support, online guideline usage and usage of AIPC was correct including all options in 28%, 66% and 100%, respectively (p < 0.01).Clinical decision support systems have the potential to reduces decision-making time and to enhance decision quality.
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.