ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
AMPDECIDE amputation level patient decision aids: a feasibility study.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- AMPREDICT Mobility-4: A Novel Four Category Mobility Outcome Prediction Model for Patients Undergoing Vascular Amputation.European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery · 2025Article
- Evidence on Patient Decision Aids and Shared Decision-Making Across Breast Centers in Europe: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis was a feasibility study of the AMPDECIDE amputation level selection patient decision aids (one transmetatarsal vs. transtibial, the other transtibial vs. transfemoral) designed to inform a larger efficacy trial. We intended to gather data about usability of the aids, gather efficacy data about an amputation-level specific knowledge scale, identify any patient-barriers to the use of the decision aids, and evaluate the feasibility of our study methods.
designFeasibility study with an uncontrolled before-after design in two medical centers.
methodsA convenience sample of dysvascular patients (both pre- and post-amputation) seen by either the vascular or orthopaedic surgery services at each facility were recruited. Enrolled patients completed baseline measures (including amputation level knowledge items). They then reviewed the decision aid with a research coordinator, followed by additional measures of control preference, numeracy, literacy and open-ended questions.
resultsEleven patients were enrolled (9-post amputation, 2 pre-amputation). Patients rated the decision aids as easy to navigate. Nearly all patients expressed a desire to see their personalized mobility and reamputation risks should they be made available. Patients demonstrated 17% improved amputation level knowledge after exposure to the decision aids. In addition, 81% of patients indicated wanting to participate in the amputation level decision. The study encountered difficulties identifying and recruiting patients until greater clinician involvement was included.
conclusionsThe AMPDECIDE patient decision aids and the study measures appear well suited for a larger efficacy trial. Patients were able to digest the information supplied in the aids and responded well to them. The initial recruitment strategy was insufficient; greater clinician involvement may help in the future. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.