SynthesisBJU international2025
Empowering patient choice: a systematic review of decision aids for benign prostatic hyperplasia.
Synthesis in BJU international, 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.
- Counseling is counseling is counseling is counseling - The evolution of LUTS/BPO care.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBenign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a complex condition that affects ~3.2 million men in the UK. As men often face multiple treatment options, discussion and consideration of their priorities and preferences is necessary; however, research indicates this is not always adopted in practice.
objectivesTo evaluate decisional interventions currently available for men with symptomatic BPH, distinct from those designed for prostate cancer.
methodsEight databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, Science Direct, Scopus, Google, Cochrane Library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) were searched retrieving a total of 1979 results, of which 13 international studies discussing 10 decision aids (DAs) were included. Studies were eligible that targeted adult males experiencing urological symptoms and discussed any DA designed to promote shared decision making within secondary healthcare.
resultsNarrative synthesis found most DAs focused on treatment information provision; however, risk information was not always equally presented. Most DAs lacked strong theoretical links to existing theories on behaviour change, risk communication, and decision making, and sustained implementation within clinical practice. The most effective aids went beyond information provision, to also elicit and integrate patient preferences and values, by adopting multiple behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Risk of bias indicated medium risk with limited information or justification on data collection and analysis methods.
conclusionCurrent DAs relevant to BPH lack clear focus on individual patient needs required for delivering patient-centred care. Greater transparency and explicit links to behavioural theory and BCTs related to desired future outcomes, expectations, and values are required to effectively create and implement effective interventions into urological practice.
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.