ArticleJMIR research protocols2026
Use of Shared Decision-Making in Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Protocol for a Scoping Review.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Use of Shared Decision-Making in Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
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: With a growing range of treatment options for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), the emergence of longitudinal patient-reported quality-of-life data, and an aging population managing the treatment burden of coexisting conditions, there is an increasing need for shared decision-making processes and tools to support urologists and patients in navigating complex treatment decisions. What remains unknown is how shared decision-making is currently incorporated into NMIBC treatment decisions and which factors inform key decisions in NMIBC. Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to map and characterize the existing literature on shared decision-making in NMIBC, with a focus on decision-making tools, decision points in the NMIBC cancer journey, and factors influencing patient and clinician decision-making. Methods: This scoping review protocol was designed in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. The final results will be reported in a subsequent publication in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) 2018 guidelines. A comprehensive search strategy will identify published, unpublished, and gray literature from databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Web of Science), professional society websites, and foundation websites. Eligibility criteria were determined based on the population, concept, and context framework. The population will include adults aged ≥18 years at the time of NMIBC diagnosis, with urothelial histology. The concept focuses on existing shared decision-making tools and patient- and urologist-level factors contributing to decisions. The context includes urology clinics in academic and community settings. Results: The literature search was conducted in September 2025. Title and abstract screening, full-text review, qualitative data coding, and quantitative data analysis are anticipated to be completed by October 2026. Conclusions: The treatment landscape for NMIBC is rapidly evolving, with a growing range of options, each with its own risks and benefits. This scoping review will help elucidate how shared decision-making is currently used in NMIBC treatment decisions and identify the key factors that are important to both urologists and patients. These data will guide future intervention development and research to enhance the quality of shared decision-making in NMIBC.
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.