ArticleJAMA network open2026
Personalized Decision-Making in Risk-Reducing Surgery of the Ovaries.
Article in JAMA network 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Premenopausal women at familial or hereditary risk of ovarian cancer must weigh the risks and benefits of risk-reducing surgery. How they navigate this decision is not well understood. Objective: To assess the factors that motivate women to seek risk-reducing surgery for ovarian cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A discrete choice experiment enrolled premenopausal women seeking genetic testing for ovarian cancer risk at 2 tertiary-level cancer centers between August 2019 and January 2022. The experiment was conducted twice, once just prior to pretest counseling and again approximately 2 months later, after receiving results of genetic testing. Data analysis was conducted between June 2022 through January 2026. Main Outcomes and Measures: Conjoint analysis to assess factors influencing cancer-prevention decisions in women with risk of familial and hereditary ovarian cancer. Conjoint analysis was used to investigate which attributes were the most salient for women when considering treatment scenarios, with demographic and clinical data as modifiers. Participants were asked to choose between sets of randomly permuted scenarios specifying type of treatment, risk and age of ovarian cancer, risk of heart disease and osteoporosis, and features of menopause. Results: The participants included 355 women (median age, 37 years [range, 21-55 years]): 10.4% were Black, 7.6% were Hispanic, 85.1% were White, and 79.2% were college graduates. Family history of breast cancer was reported by 45.1%, ovarian cancer by 13.0%, and 11.3% had a personal history of breast cancer. Women preferred risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) to risk-reducing salpingectomy (RRS) or observation (odds ratio [OR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.10-1.39). Differences in osteoporosis (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89) and heart disease (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.84) risks affected choices. Preferences favored natural menopause (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.33) and milder menopausal symptoms (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.61-0.70). Family history of ovarian cancer increased preference for RRSO (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.05-1.52), with a reduced effect in older women. Personal breast cancer history, ancestry, and genetic test results were not significant factors. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study using conjoint analysis highlights the ability of women to weigh competing risks in reducing ovarian cancer. Counseling models that address decision complexity and incorporate personalized guidance are likely to improve the decision-making process.
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.