SynthesisEuropean journal of cardiovascular nursing2025
Effectiveness of patient decision aids for cardiovascular decisions: systematic review with sex/gender-based analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of cardiovascular nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Appraising the Quality of Patient Decision Aids for Brain and Heart Health: An Environmental Scan with a Health Equity Lens.CJC open · 2026Article
- My Heart and CKD: Pathway to Implementing a Decision Aid for Patients With CKD and Coronary Artery Disease.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsDetermine effectiveness of cardiovascular patient decision aids (PtDAs), assess consideration for sex and/or gender in included trials, and report whether PtDAs included sex/gender information in personal cardiovascular risk calculations, benefits or harms. METHODS AND
resultsSystematic review with meta-analysis. Independent reviewers screened 209 trials in the 2024 Cochrane Review of PtDAs for eligible cardiovascular trials with updated search to February 2025. Primary outcomes: attributes of the decision-quality and decision-making process. We conducted meta-analysis for similarly measured outcomes. We assessed sex/gender considerations according to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' recommendations. Thirty-two trials evaluated PtDAs vs. usual care on cardiovascular screening (n = 3 trials; 9.4%), prevention (n = 4; 12.5%), and treatment (n = 25; 78.1%) decisions. There was no difference between groups on decision quality (2 trials). Patients exposed to PtDAs had significantly improved decision-making process outcomes: 12% greater knowledge (20 trials), 127% more accurate risk perceptions (7 trials), 10% feel less uninformed (12 trials), 8% less unclear values (12 trials), and 31% less clinician-controlled decision-making (4 trials). There were no harms. All 32 trials reported sex or gender with 15 (47%) using appropriate terms. One trial reported outcomes separately by sex, but not by study arm. Six (19%) discussed influence of sex/gender on trial findings. Fourteen (43.8%) PtDAs included sex/gender personalized cardiovascular risk scores.
conclusionCardiovascular PtDAs improve quality of the decision-making process. Less than half of trials used appropriate sex/gender terms and only one reported findings separately by sex/gender. Future PtDA research must improve sex and gender-based reporting and analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.