Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41732547›Full record

ReviewTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2026

Shared decision-making in radiotherapy for rectal cancer - A systematic review.

Lise Kjær Schou, Anne Wilhøft Kristensen, Johanne Hollands Steffensen, Marianne Grønlie Guren, Laurids Østergaard Poulsen, Karen-Lise Garm Spindler, Camilla Jensenius Skovhus Kronborg

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lise Kjær SchouDanish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 25, 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark.
Anne Wilhøft KristensenDanish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 25, 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark.
Johanne Hollands SteffensenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 82, 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark.
Marianne Grønlie GurenInstitute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Boks 1072 Blindern, NO-0316 Oslo, Norway.
Laurids Østergaard PoulsenAalborg University, Fredrik Bajers Vej 7K, 9220 Aalborg East, Denmark.
Karen-Lise Garm SpindlerDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 82, 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark.
Camilla Jensenius Skovhus KronborgDanish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 25, 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is increasingly emphasized in the ESMO guidelines for rectal cancer (RC). This review aim to describe the current landscape for SDM for radiotherapy (RT) in RC, investigate patient and clinician preferences regarding SDM and treatment options, and identify gaps in SDM for RT in RC. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and EMBASE on June 4, 2025. Eligible studies investigated SDM, Patient Decision aids (PDA), and patient and clinician preferences regarding SDM related to RT for RC. Data extraction included study characteristics, interventions and outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results were synthesized narratively. Results: This review included 18 articles, 2 used SDM or developed PDAs, 5 explored patient preferences, 11 explored both patient and clinician preferences. Only a limited number of PDAs were available for RT in RC and none have yet been implemented or validated. Preferences differed between patients and clinicians. Patients valued sexual function and bowel outcomes more highly, while clinicians empathized survival and local control. Gender disparities were reported for patients. Patients preferred an active role in decision-making, but systematic SDM was infrequently used in clinical practice. Barriers included time constraints and infrequent use of SDM. Conclusion: Despite the complexity of decisions involving multiple treatment options and outcomes, no validated SDM tools exist for RT in RC, and significant gaps remain in development, implementation and use. Future research should focus on developing and implementing SDM and PDAs in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Clinician preferencesPatient decision aidsPatient preferencesRadiotherapyRectal cancerShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID41732547
PMCPMC12925584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.