ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2025
A thematic analysis of shared decision-making in consultations with patients with a presumed brain tumor and neurosurgeons.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2025. 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.
- Negotiating uncertainty and responsibility after a vestibular schwannoma diagnosis: a qualitative study of meaning-making and surgical decision-making.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Nanomaterial-enhanced biosensors for traumatic brain injury biomarker detection: a review of analytical performance, machine learning integration, clinical validation, and point-of-care translation.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
- Health-related quality of life disparities among vestibular schwannoma patients under different treatment regimens: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Brain & spine · 2026Review
- Shared decision-making in neuro-oncology: Existing practices and future steps.Neuro-oncology practice · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with brain tumors, family members, and healthcare professionals face complex healthcare decisions that can significantly impact everyday life. Engaging in shared decision-making (SDM) can help ensure treatment decisions align with patients' preferences and goals. Little is known about the decision-making process in neurosurgical consultations. This study aims to qualitatively explore and describe the SDM process during neurosurgical consultations for patients with a presumed brain tumor. Methods: The first consultation between patients with presumed glioma or meningioma and their neurosurgeons was audio-recorded and transcribed. Decision-making models were used as sensitization concepts, with coding carried out inductively. We employed a reflexive thematic analysis to develop themes and subthemes until saturation was beginning to emerge. Results: Analyzing eleven consultations, we developed three main themes and twelve subthemes. The results depict decision-making guided by neurosurgeons (theme 1), with varying degrees of engagement from patients and family members (theme 2) and personalization of the decision-making process based on the medical situation and everyday life priorities (theme 3). The consultations lacked specific attention to the everyday life priorities of the patients. Conclusions: The decision-making processes seemed to focus primarily on medically informing patients with a presumed brain tumor, in line with informed decision-making. However, less emphasis was placed on learning more about the patient's everyday life and preferences to integrate into the decision-making process, which is key to SDM. Incorporating patient goals may lead to greater personalization and decisions that align with both the patient's medical situation and their goals.
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.