Trial reportActa orthopaedica2026
Effect of an in-consult patient decision aid on decisional quality and involvement for patients with severe hip or knee osteoarthritis: a multicenter, cluster randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Acta orthopaedica, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeShared decision-making (SDM) is important in managing patients with severe hip and knee osteoarthritis, where treatment decisions often depend on patient preferences and values. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an in-consult patient decision aid in improving decision quality and patient involvement compared with usual care.
methodsIn a cluster-randomized controlled trial, surgeons from 2 Danish orthopedic departments were randomized to use in-consult patient decision aids or provide usual care. The primary outcome was decision quality assessed using the Hip/Knee OA Decision Quality Instrument (HK-DQI). Patients who were well informed and received their preferred treatment received an Informed Patient-Centered (IPC) score of 1, indicating good decisional quality; all others scored 0. Secondary outcomes included patient-experienced engagement and involvement in decision-making, assessed using CollaboRATE and the decision-process domain of the Hip/Knee OA Decision Quality Instrument and consultation duration. Relative risks (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using multilevel regression models.
results20 surgeons were randomized to either use in-consult patient decision aids (n = 10) or provide usual care (n = 10). Of the 1,038 patients screened for severe hip or knee osteoarthritis, 581 were included in the study. Decision quality was similar between groups, with a score of 43 (36-51) in the intervention group and 44 (37-52) in the usual care group (RR 0.9, CI 0.7-1.2; P = 0.8), likewise, patient-experienced engagement assessed with CollaboRATE (RR 1.1, CI 0.8-1.4; P = 0.6). Consultations were longer in the intervention group, with a mean difference of 3.9 minutes (CI 0.1-7.7; P = 0.04).
conclusionDecision quality and patient-reported engagement were similar between groups, while consultation time was longer with in-consult patient decision aids use. In the absence of prespecified minimal important differences, the clinical relevance of these findings remains uncertain.
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.