ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2026
Variation in quality of physician communication in prostate cancer consultations.
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClear communication of treatment risks and benefits is essential for shared decision making (SDM) in prostate cancer (PC). However, the quality of physician communication in real-world consultations remains poorly characterized. We assessed variation in quality of risk communication in PC consultations and its association with patient, tumor, and provider characteristics. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study of 50 PC consultations in a multispecialty cohort of physicians (3 urologists, 3 medical oncologists, 3 radiation oncologists), with an analytic sample comprising 19,388 sentences. Transcripts were coded for five AUA-endorsed SDM content areas: cancer severity, life expectancy (LE), oncologic endpoints, baseline function, and treatment side effects (SEs). Analysts extracted all statements on these topics and scored communication quality using a validated 6-point scale (0 = omission, 1 = name only, 2 = binary assessment of risk, 3 = imprecise quantification, 4 = specific quantification, and 5 = patient-specific estimate). For each consultation, we calculated overall (weighted average) and content-specific scores. We then conducted an exploratory analysis of variation in communication quality by patient, tumor, and provider characteristics.
resultsCommunication quality varied substantially across consultations and content areas. Cancer severity had the highest median score (5, IQR 4-5), indicating this information was typically communicated using patient-specific estimates. LE had a median of 3 (IQR 2-5), indicating imprecise quantification. Oncologic endpoints also had a median of 3 (IQR 2-3). Baseline function and SEs had the lowest median of 1 (IQRs 1-2 and 0-2), indicating name-only communication. Exploratory analyses revealed that overall communication quality was lower for Black patients, higher among urologists, increased with higher tumor risk, and varied by physician. Content-specific quality did not improve in subgroups where the content was clinically relevant (e.g., LE quality was not higher for patients with limited LE).
conclusionsQuality of physician communication in PC consultations varies across content areas and may be influenced by patient, tumor, and provider characteristics.
Identifiers
42816534What 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.