ArticleUrology2025
Topic Mapping to Inform Content to Discuss in Shared Decision-Making for Prostate Cancer.
Article in Urology, 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
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a framework for shared decision-making (SDM) in prostate cancer (PC) by identifying key topics that are covered during consultations. Although SDM is the guidelines-endorsed standard of care, there is no widely accepted standard for what to discuss during SDM. Previous data suggests content discussed during SDM is highly variable.
methodsWe transcribed consultations of 50 men with localized PC across multidisciplinary providers. Analysts extracted quotes related to SDM, thematically coded transcripts using an open coding approach, and aggregated consensus themes into broader categories. Frequency of thematic content at a consultation level was calculated.
resultsOf 50 consultations, 39 (78%) had at least one quote related to SDM. Three major thematic content areas were identified: description of the decision-making process (35/39, 90%), patient preferences and values (31/39, 79%), and physician preferences (30/39, 77%). Description of the decision-making process, not included in current American Urological Association SDM guidelines, included five sub-content areas: (1) general description of SDM, (2) patient role, (3) physician role, (4) decisions order, and (5) decision-making hazards to avoid. These sub-content areas were further subdivided into detailed areas of content discussed. For example, general description of SDM included describing how to make a decision (69%), endorsing the shared nature of decision making (43%), and the difficulty of treatment decisions (23%).
conclusionOur topic-mapped framework outlines the major thematic content areas covered in PC SDM, which providers can use to guide SDM discussions with patients. Description of the decision-making process-which is critical to ensuring patients understand their active role in SDM-should be included in future iterations of American Urological Association SDM guidelines.
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.