ReviewBJA open2026
The involvement of anaesthetists and other healthcare professionals with surgeons in shared decision-making for adult patients contemplating surgery: a systematic review and narrative analysis.
Review in BJA open, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recognising the medical and surgical complexity of certain patient populations, perioperative pathways are evolving to incorporate multidisciplinary team perspectives, alongside surgeons, in shared decision-making. We aimed to synthesise the evidence base for multidisciplinary team shared decision-making. Methods: We performed a systematic literature review accessing bibliographic databases (MEDLINE (using OVID), EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and ProQuest), the international prospective register for systematic reviews (PROSPERO), the International Standard Randomised Control Trial Number Registry, and the King's Fund Library Database. Results: Of 8727 citations, 271 were eligible for full-text review and 29 included in the final narrative synthesis. A wide variety of non-surgical healthcare professionals (e.g. anaesthetist, geriatrician, radiation oncologist, intensivist, specialist nurse, physiotherapist, psychologist, and social worker) and others (including peer support) participated in perioperative shared decision-making. Consultations were mainly structured sequentially or concomitantly with surgical consultations. Patients and clinicians generally responded positively to multidisciplinary team shared decision-making. Where measured, decisional quality was reported to have improved, and decisional conflict reduced. Studies of high-risk patients indicated that multidisciplinary team shared decision-making was more likely to result in non-operative management. We identified five features of these modes of multidisciplinary team shared decision-making consultation: identification of relevant experts required, expert multidisciplinary assessment, thorough consideration of alternative treatments, coordinated patient support, and additional consultation time. Conclusions: Some surgical populations, as a function of the complexity of their medical, surgical, or both condition(s), would benefit from multidisciplinary team shared decision-making. Further research is required to understand the optimal organisation of this approach and the impact on patient and systems outcomes. Systematic review protocol: PROSPERO (CRD42025636328).
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.