ArticlePatient preference and adherence2026
Construction of a Shared Decision-Making Program for Chronic Pain Management in Adult Patients with Hemophilic Arthropathy.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Chronic pain impairs physical and mental health and reduces quality of life in adult patients with hemophilic arthropathy. However, no shared decision-making (SDM) program specifically tailored to this population currently exists for chronic pain management. This study aimed to develop an SDM program for chronic pain management in adult patients with hemophilic arthropathy, thereby providing guidance for standardized patient-centered chronic pain management in clinical practice. Methods: With the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) as theoretical guidance, the initial draft was generated from literature review and qualitative interviews, and two rounds of modified Delphi survey were performed to adjust the indicators and finalize the program. Results: Fifteen multidisciplinary experts completed both rounds of consultations, with a 100% response rate and an authority coefficient of 0.85. In the second round, Kendall's W values for the importance of primary, secondary and tertiary indicators were 0.323, 0.191 and 0.218, respectively, and the corresponding W values of feasibility were 0.321, 0.226 and 0.170 (all P < 0.01). The final program consisted of 3 primary, 13 secondary and 54 tertiary indicators for chronic pain management in adult patients with hemophilic arthropathy. Conclusion: The program developed in this study is scientifically robust and provides structured guidance for patient-centered chronic pain management among adult patients with hemophilic arthropathy in clinical settings. Further validation of its effectiveness in clinical practice is warranted.
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.