ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2026
Real-world implementation of a pre-consultation patient educational tool for intermediate risk prostate cancer.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prostate Cancer (PCa) decision-making requires patients to understand their diagnosis and therapeutic options, balancing care nuances and risk-to-benefit profiles. The complexity of information and a wide range of treatments often exceed what can be covered in consultation. Our team developed a PCa Educational Tool to enhance patient understanding and support decision-making process. Methods: The PCa Educational Tool was designed using plain language principles and evidence-based content. The tool was distributed automatically to newly diagnosed intermediate-risk PCa patients. A post-use questionnaire assessed usability, satisfaction, and perceived educational value. Qualitative feedback was categorized by sentiment and themes. Treatment selection was explored between sequential cohorts before and after implementation. Results: A total of 395 patients received the tool, and 79.7% completed the questionnaire. Among respondents, 88.1% felt more prepared for discussion with their care team, and 74.8% indicated improved understanding of their diagnosis. Satisfaction rates were high, with 93.9% of respondents recommending the tool to other patients. Qualitative analysis revealed positive feedback on the tool's comprehensiveness and format, while highlighting other areas for improvement. Exploratory comparison of treatment selection showed statistically significant differences between the sequential cohorts, with a slight increase selection of brachytherapy and focal therapies. Conclusions: PCa Educational Tool improved patient understanding and preparedness for consultation with the care team. In exploratory analysis, its use is correlated with a statistically significant shift in treatment choices in sequential cohorts (
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.