ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
An online decision aid for patients with prostate cancer evaluating local treatment options reduces decisional conflict and distress and improves knowledge: Postmarket surveillance in German routine care.
Article in World journal of urology, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveSince 2016, more than 26,000 patients have used the online prostate cancer (PC) decision aid “Entscheidungshilfe Prostatakrebs”. Because a large, randomized, controlled evaluation trial failed to show effects regarding the primary and secondary outcomes after 4 weeks, we used postmarket surveillance data for further analyses. The aim of this study was to analyze the immediate effects of using a PC decision aid on decisional conflict, distress, and knowledge.
methodsA total of 2,245 patients used the PC decision aid between 05/2023 and 01/2024. We applied identical validated instruments before and after use to record immediate effects in an intra-individual comparison; the endpoints were decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale, DCS), distress (Distress Thermometer), and objective knowledge (Decision Quality Worksheet).
resultsComplete data were available for 880 patients (39.2%). The mean patient age was 66.3 ± 7.2 (range 43–84) years. The DCS score improved from 37.5 ± 23.7 before to 20.1 ± 15.7 after using the decision aid (p < 0.001). This effect was consistent across all the DCS subscales: level of information, clarity, support, and uncertainty. The Distress Thermometer (0: no distress; to 10: maximum distress) showed an improvement of 3.1 points from 6.2 ± 2.6 to 3.1 ± 2.6 (p < 0.001). Objective knowledge significantly improved for 4 out of the 5 questions, with differences in absolute percentages of correct answers ranging from 18.8% to 30%. The number of correct answers before vs. after using the PC decision aid increased from 2.3 ± 1.1 to 3.0 ± 1.1 (p < 0.001).
conclusionIn conjunction with the results of our previous work, we can now report strong immediate effects that diminish over a period of four weeks: the evaluated online PC decision aid reduces decisional conflict and distress and improves patient knowledge. These results provide further support for offering this tool to all suitable patients. An ongoing randomized controlled study will address the current study limitations.
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.