Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33966534›Full record

SynthesisMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2021

Are We Improving? Update and Critical Appraisal of the Reporting of Decision Process and Quality Measures in Trials Evaluating Patient Decision Aids.

Logan Trenaman, Jesse Jansen, Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby, Mirjam Körner, Joanne Lally, Daniel Matlock, Lilisbeth Perestelo-Perez, Mary Ropka, Christine Stirling, Kathrene Valentine and 4 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Operationalizing and Measuring Informed Choice in Health Care: An Umbrella Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Logan TrenamanUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6399-5741
Jesse JansenMaastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Jennifer Blumenthal-BarbyCenter for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Mirjam KörnerInstitute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Medical Faculty, Albert-Ludwigs- University, Freiburg, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany.
Joanne LallyPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Baddiley Clark Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Daniel MatlockUniversity of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9597-9642
Lilisbeth Perestelo-PerezEvaluation Unit, Canary Islands Health Service, REDISSEC, Tenerife Spain.
Mary RopkaUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Christine StirlingSchool of Nursing, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Kathrene ValentineHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6349-5395
Ha VoMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Celia E WillsOhio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Richard ThomsonPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Baddiley Clark Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Karen SepuchaHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3762-3880

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2014, a systematic review found large gaps in the quality of reporting of measures used in 86 published trials evaluating the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs). The purpose of this study was to update that review.

methodsWe examined measures of decision making used in 49 randomized controlled trials included in the 2014 and 2017 Cochrane Collaboration systematic review of PtDAs. Data on development of the measures, reliability, validity, responsiveness, precision, interpretability, feasibility, and acceptability were independently abstracted by 2 paired reviewers.

resultsInformation from 273 measures was abstracted, and 109 of these covered the core domains of decision processes ( LIMITATIONS: The review was limited to reporting of measures in studies included in the Cochrane review and did not consult prior publications.

conclusionThere continues to be very little reported about the development or performance of measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of PtDAs in published trials. Minimum reporting standards have been published, and efforts to require investigators to use them are needed.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationQuality Indicators, Health CareDecision Support TechniquesHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of Resultschecklist/standardsdecision support techniquespatient-centred carepatient decision aidsshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID33966534
PMCPMC8474325

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.