ArticleBMJ open2026
Shared decision-making in patients with stroke: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 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
objectiveTo map the existing evidence on shared decision-making (SDM) in stroke care across four dimensions (clinical contexts, decision support tools, influencing factors and implementation outcomes) and to identify key research gaps.
designScoping review conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Database from inception to 15 September 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if they focused on patients with stroke; involved SDM (defined as a collaborative process in which patients and healthcare professionals make health-related decisions together, integrating the best available evidence with patient values and preferences) or decision-support interventions in clinical management; and reported on applications, processes or outcomes of SDM. Both qualitative and quantitative studies were considered. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were charted using a predefined form and synthesised through a narrative and thematic analysis to map application scenarios, implementation formats and influencing factors.
resultsSeventeen studies were included. SDM was applied across multiple stroke care processes, including acute thrombolysis, secondary prevention and discharge planning. Implementation formats varied, including paper-based tools, visual decision aids, web-based platforms and computer-assisted systems. Influencing factors were identified at multiple levels, including patient-related factors, healthcare professional engagement, characteristics of decision-support tools and organisational processes. Overall, SDM showed potential benefits in improving patient involvement and decision quality, although evidence remained heterogeneous and limited.
conclusionsSDM shows a promising but underdeveloped application in stroke care. Existing evidence is fragmented, with variability in implementation approaches and limited high-quality evaluation. Future research should focus on establishing standardised definitions and outcome measures for SDM, developing decision-support tools that can be adapted to diverse stroke care processes and evaluating SDM implementation across the full continuum of care, which would help strengthen the evidence base in this field.
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.