ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2025
Insights of shared decision-making and personalized treatment in orthopedics - A qualitative systematic review.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Unlocking effective decision-making and critical thinking in orthopaedics: Insights from a narrative review.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 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
Background: The shift from a paternalistic model to a patient-centered approach in medical decision-making has significantly transformed the doctor-patient relationship, especially in India. The rise of the Internet and patient education resources has empowered patients to actively participate in their healthcare decisions. Methods: A systematic review was registered in PROSPERO [CRD420250652673] and was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), and Google Scholar, focusing on English-language publications about shared decision-making (SDM) in total joint replacement. Randomized controlled trials, studies on decision-making preferences, and disease-specific decision aids were included. Exclusion criteria encompassed advance directives and lifestyle-related decisions. Results: SDM models have gained prominence globally, with various nations integrating patient rights and decision-making tools into their healthcare systems. Different patient care models, including paternalistic, informed, and SDM, have been critically examined for their advantages and limitations. Conclusion: The review highlights the evolving nature of patient involvement in medical decisions, emphasizing the importance of SDM in aligning treatments with patient preferences and values.
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.