SynthesisBJU international2025
Efficacy of decision aid delivery modes in prostate cancer screening: umbrella review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BJU international, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo review and compare the efficacy of different delivery modes of decision aids (DAs), including computer-based, print-based, multimedia-based, video-based, and website-based on decision-making outcomes for prostate cancer screening compared to usual care (UC) and among the delivery modes.
methodsPubMed, the Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Google Advanced Search, and Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) Database were systematically searched from inception to August 2023. The primary outcomes were knowledge level, knowledge scores, participation in shared decision-making (SDM), decisional conflict, and preference for SDM participation. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of subjects who underwent screening (actual screening utilisation) and the proportion of subjects who intended to be screened (intention to undergo screening). Network and pairwise meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models.
resultsSeven systematic reviews were included. Network meta-analysis found that multimedia (relative risk [RR] 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-2.24), print (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.23-2.69), and website-based (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.32-3.01) DAs significantly increased participation in SDM compared to the computer-based DA. There was a significant reduction in the actual screening utilisation in the computer DA arm compared to the other delivery modes. No significant differences between all delivery modes were noted on knowledge levels, knowledge scores, decisional conflict, preference for SDM participation, and intention to undergo screening. The highest mean surface under the cumulative ranking curve for all primary outcomes showed that website-based was the most effective delivery mode, followed by print-based DA. The pairwise meta-analysis showed a significant increase in participants' knowledge level, knowledge scores, a reduced intention to undergo screening and actual screening utilisation compared to UC.
conclusionsThe findings suggest that different types of DAs have varying levels of effectiveness in increasing knowledge level, knowledge scores, participation in SDM, and influencing screening behaviours. While website-based DA appeared the most effective, employing the print-based DA could be a practical solution in settings with limited resources.
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.