ArticleBMJ open2025
The clinical application of shared decision-making in emergency surgery: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
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
introductionShared decision-making (SDM) between clinicians and patients is considered 'best practice'. There is limited evidence regarding SDM in surgery, particularly in the emergency setting. Emergency SDM may be particularly challenging due to: time pressures, the patient's underlying condition and the nature of the patient-surgeon interaction. However, emergency surgery arguably has a greater need for SDM due to the likelihood of disparate outcomes from intervention, which is dependent on the various treatment options available. This is necessary for patients to make informed decisions regarding their treatment of surgical pathology. The primary objective of this scoping review is to understand the extent and type of evidence in relation to SDM in emergency surgery to determine methods for improving SDM.
methodsAny studies reporting SDM in emergency surgery on adult patients (age >18 years) will be included. EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL and Scopus databases will be searched for articles with no language or date limits. Studies will be screened by two independent reviewers, with consensus met prior to data extraction. Data extracted to include study design, details of study population, tools used to measure SDM, prevalence of SDM and barriers and enablers for SDM.A systematic narrative synthesis will be performed following JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) guidance. These will summarise findings of included studies. The findings may inform future research into facilitating implementation of SDM in emergency surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethical approval. Final findings will be submitted for peer-reviewed publication and presentation at surgical conferences.
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.