Evidence mapPaperPMID 29467235Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2018

Explanation and elaboration of the Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE) guidelines: examples of reporting SUNDAE items from patient decision aid evaluation literature.

Aubri S Hoffman, Karen R Sepucha, Purva Abhyankar, Stacey Sheridan, Hilary Bekker, Annie LeBlanc, Carrie Levin, Mary Ropka, Victoria Shaffer, Dawn Stacey and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Trial
  4. A Randomized Pilot Trial of the Donor Conception Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking (TELL Tool) with Their Children About Their Genetic Origins.Journal of pediatric health care : official publication of National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Alpha Test of the Donor Conception Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: Evidence Update 2.0.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Aubri S HoffmanDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Karen R SepuchaDepartment of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3762-3880
Purva AbhyankarFaculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Stacey SheridanThe Reaching for High Value Care Team, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Hilary BekkerLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Annie LeBlancDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, Canada.
Carrie LevinResearch (April 2014-November 2016), Healthwise Incorporated, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Mary RopkaPublic Health Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Victoria ShafferHealth Sciences and Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri Health, Columbia, Missouri, USA.
Dawn StaceyOttawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Peep StalmeierHealth Evidence, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ha VoDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Celia WillsCollege of Nursing, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Richard ThomsonInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Funding

AHRQ HHS R13 HS024250
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) article expands on the 26 items in the Standards for UNiversal reporting of Decision Aid Evaluations guidelines. The E&E provides a rationale for each item and includes examples for how each item has been reported in published papers evaluating patient decision aids. The E&E focuses on items key to reporting studies evaluating patient decision aids and is intended to be illustrative rather than restrictive. Authors and reviewers may wish to use the E&E broadly to inform structuring of patient decision aid evaluation reports, or use it as a reference to obtain details about how to report individual checklist items.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesChecklistDelphi TechniqueHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient ParticipationPractice Guidelines as TopicQuality of Health Carechecklistspatient-centred carepatient educationshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID29467235
PMCPMC5965363

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.