ArticleAnaesthesia2026
PeriOperative Quality Initiative consensus statement recommendations on the definitions, aims and delivery of shared decision-making for major surgery.
Article in Anaesthesia, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionShared decision-making is a collaborative process whereby clinicians and patients work together to decide on a treatment plan that is informed by evidence, clinical experience and individual patient characteristics and preferences. This process is particularly important for complex surgical decisions when the risks and benefits of treatment are finely balanced. However, shared decision-making has not been implemented consistently in peri-operative pathways and structured shared decision-making for patients requiring enhanced decisional support is not widely available. We aimed to develop clinical practice recommendations for peri-operative shared decision-making through an international consensus process.
methodsA modified nominal group technique was utilised, comprising seven stages. Idea generation (stages 1 and 2) was conducted online. Stages 3-7 occurred in person over 2.5 days and involved iterative rounds of deliberation, refinement and voting to develop consensus statements and recommendations. An international multidisciplinary group of 22 experts was purposively selected to represent diverse perspectives across healthcare settings and reflected relevant stakeholders in peri-operative shared decision-making. Three consumer advisors were also recruited who had lived experience of major surgery either as a patient or carer.
resultsConsensus for recommendations was defined a priori as 75% of all faculty indicating agreement across successive rounds of anonymous voting. Universal consensus was obtained on 25 recommendations, which included a definition of 'universal shared decision-making' for all patients contemplating surgery and referral criteria for 'specialised shared decision-making services' for patients with higher decisional-support needs. The core components of shared decision-making services and priority areas for research were also identified. DISCUSSION: This is the first consensus statement recommendations for peri-operative shared decision-making co-created by consumers and clinicians. It will support the implementation of shared decision-making for patients contemplating surgery.
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.