ReviewCancer medicine2024
Factors Guiding Clinical Decision-Making in Genitourinary Oncology.
Review in Cancer medicine, 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.
- Bellmunt Risk Score as a Prognostic Tool in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Survival.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- The impact of health beliefs on treatment decision conflict through treatment expectations mediation in patients with lumbar disc herniation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical decision-making in oncology is a complex process, with the primary goal of identifying the most effective treatment tailored to individual cancer patients. Many factors influence the treatment decision: disease- and patient-specific criteria, the increasingly complex treatment landscape, market authorization and drug availability, financial aspects, and personal treatment expertise. In the domain of genitourinary cancers, particularly prostate cancer, decision-making is challenging. Despite the prevalence of this malignancy, there are few in-depth explorations of these factors within real-world scenarios. Understanding and refining this intricate decision-making process is essential for future successful clinical decisions and the integration of computerized decision support into clinicians' workflows.
aimThe objective of this study is to improve the current knowledge base and evidence of the factors that influence treatment decision-making for patients with genitourinary cancers.
methodsAssessment of how routine treatment decisions are made for genitourinary cancers was performed by a mixed-methods study, encompassing field observations and focus group discussions.
resultsIn total, we identified 59 factors that influence clinical decision-making in oncology, specifically for genitourinary and prostate cancer. Of these, 23 criteria can be classified as decision-maker-related criteria encompassing personal, cognitive, and emotional attributes and factors of both, healthcare professionals and patients. Moreover, 20 decision-specific criteria have been identified that refer to clinical and disease-related factors, followed by 16 contextual decision factors that describe the relevant criteria introduced by the specific circumstances and environment in which the treatment decision is made.
conclusionBy presenting an exhaustive set of decision factors and providing specific examples for genitourinary cancers, this observational study establishes a possible framework for a better understanding of decision-making. Moreover, we specify and expand the set of decision factors, while emphasizing the importance of cognitive, emotional, and human factors, as well as the quality and accessibility of decision-relevant information.
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.