ArticlePloS one2025
Patient-Selection of a Clinical Trial Primary Outcome: The ENHANCE-AF Outcomes Survey.
Article in PloS one, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBefore the initiation of the ENHANCE-AF clinical trial, which tested a novel digital shared decision-making tool to guide the use of anticoagulants in stroke prevention for patients with atrial fibrillation, this study aimed to identify the most appropriate, patient-selected primary outcome and to examine whether outcome selection varied by demographic and clinical characteristics.
methodsOur cross-sectional survey asked 100 participants with atrial fibrillation to rank two alternative scales based on the scales' ability to reflect their experiences with decision-making for anticoagulation. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), a 16-item scale, measures perceptions of uncertainty in choosing options. The 5-item Decision Regret Scale (DRS) focuses on remorse after a healthcare decision. We included adults with non-valvular AFib and CHA2DS2VASc scores of at least 2 for men and 3 for women. Multivariable logistic regression with backward selection identified characteristics independently associated with scale choice.
resultsThe DCS was chosen over the DRS by 77% [95% confidence interval (CI) 68 to 85%] of participants. All subgroups designated a preference for the DCS. Those with higher CHA2DS2VASc scores (≥5, n = 26) selected the DCS 54% of the time compared with 86% of those with lower scores (<5, n = 74; p = 0.002). Multiple logistic regression confirmed a weaker preference for the DCS among those with higher CHA2DS2VASc scores.
conclusionsIndividuals with atrial fibrillation preferred the DCS over the DRS for measuring their decision-making experiences. As a result of this survey, the DCS was designated as the ENHANCE-AF clinical trial's primary endpoint.
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.