Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Evaluating the effectiveness of a risk prediction model (PERSARC) on improving treatment decisions quality for patients with soft-tissue sarcomas: the VALUE-PERSARC study.
Trial report 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. It is linked to trial NCT05741944 (The Value of a Risk Prediction Tool), which is not on this 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.
The Value of a Risk Prediction Tool (PERSARC) for Effective Treatment Decisions of Soft-tissue Sarcomas Patients
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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRisk prediction models (RPM) can potentially improve treatment decisions by providing personalized survival estimates for different treatment options, but their effectiveness is uncertain. The VALUE-PERSARC study evaluated the impact of the PERsonalised SARcoma Care (or PERSARC) RPM on decision-making quality in patients with high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcomas (STS).
methodsA parallel cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted in seven Dutch hospitals, assigned to usual care (control) or care with PERSARC (intervention). PERSARC supported treatment recommendations and informed patients about personalized risks and relevant treatment options. The primary outcome was decision-making quality, measured by patients’ knowledge of treatment risks and benefits and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale). Secondary outcomes included the Cancer Worry Scale (CWS), Shared Decision-Making (SDM-Q9), number of treatment options discussed and treatment choice.
resultsThis study enrolled 120 patients: 53 patients in the control group and 67 patients in the intervention group. No significant differences were observed between the control and intervention groups in patients’ adequate knowledge (respectively 82% vs. 86%) and decisional conflict (respectively 23.1 [15.5] vs. 18.9 [12.8]). Scores on the CWS (11.7 [3.3] vs. 11.0 [3.5]) and SDM-Q9 (13.3 [4.0] vs. 15.6 [3.3]) were also similar. Treatment choices did not differ significantly between groups. However, clinicians in the intervention group were significantly more likely to discuss multiple treatment options (93% vs. 35%).
conclusionWhile PERSARC did not significantly improve patients’ knowledge or decisional conflict, it led to more frequent discussion of multiple treatment options by clinicians. This may be an important step towards enhancing shared decision-making in practice. Trail registration: The VALUE-PERSARC study was registered on January 8, 2021 in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL9160) and updated on January 23, 2023 in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05741944).
trial registrationThe VALUE-PERSARC study was initially registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL9160) on January 8, 2021, and subsequently updated in ClincicalTrials.gov (NCT05741944) on January 31, 2023.
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.