Trial reportPatient preference and adherence2025
The Effect of a Patient Decision Aid Developed for Chinese Primary Angle Closure Patients: A Randomized Control Trial.
Trial report in Patient preference and adherence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Patient decision aid (PDA) can help inform appropriate selection of laser peripheral iridotomy for primary angle closure suspect (PACS) or primary angle closure (PAC). This study assesses the impact of a PDA on the decision-making process of patients diagnosed with PACS or PAC when evaluating LPI treatment options. Patients and Methods: All participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to either the control group (n = 53), with an informed consent form, or to the intervention group with a PDA (n = 54). The primary outcome investigated was decisional conflict, which was assessed at baseline and again immediately following the intervention. The secondary outcomes included knowledge scores, patient satisfaction with their participation in the decision making, and decision regret. Results: A total of 107 participants with PACS or PAC were involved in this study. The post-intervention decisional conflict score of the intervention group was lower than that of the control group, and the difference in their scores was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Patients in the intervention group scored higher on the knowledge questionnaire than those in the control group after the intervention, showing a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001). Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were identified in the scores between the groups for patient satisfaction with participation in medical decision making (P = 0.721) or in decision regret (P = 0.104). Conclusion: In comparison to the control group, the application of the PDA enabled patients with PACS or PAC to be more informed, to experience reduced decisional conflict.
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.