Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Sep;8(5):2091-2104.
doi: 10.1002/nop2.741. Epub 2020 Dec 30.

Evaluate the effectiveness of breast cancer decision aids: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomize clinical trails

Jin-Ping Gao  1 , Ying-Hui Jin  2 , Shao-Fu Yu  3 , Wang-Feng Wu  4 , Shi-Fan Han  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Evaluate the effectiveness of breast cancer decision aids: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomize clinical trails

Jin-Ping Gao et al. Nurs Open. 2021 Sep.

Abstract

Aim: To assess the effectiveness of decision aids in the treatment, prevention and screening of breast cancer patients.

Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: The review protocol was registered in the CRD Prospero database(CRD42020173028). A literature search was carried out in five databases: PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of science data in January 2020. We used The Cochrane risk bias assessment tool to evaluate the literature quality of included trials and the Review Manager 5.2 software to analyse data.

Results: We included 22 studies. Compared with the conventional methods, decision aids reduced treatment decision conflicts and had no significant effect on screening decision conflicts (WMD=-2.25, 95% CI = - 2.64,-1.87, p < .0001; WMD=-1.37, 95% CI = - 3.57,0.83, p = .22). Three were no statistical differences in participants' anxiety, decision regret, knowledge, informed choice and decision-making satisfaction between the two groups.

Keywords: breast cancer; decision conflict; patients decision aids; share decision-making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author reports no conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
PRISMA flow diagram
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Risk of bias summary for included studies
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Risk of bias assessment for each included study
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Forest plot of decision conflict between decision aid group and usual care group
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Forest plot of Anxiety between decision aid group and usual care group
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Forest plot of Satisfaction between decision aid group and usual care group
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 7
Forest plot of Knowledge between decision aid group and usual care group
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 8
Forest plot of Informed choice between decision aid group and usual care group
FIGURE 9
FIGURE 9
Forest plot of Decision regret between decision aid group and usual care group
FIGURE 10
FIGURE 10
the sensitivity analysis of decision conflict between decision aid group and usual care group
FIGURE 11
FIGURE 11
the sensitivity analysis of Anxiety between decision aid group and usual care group between decision aid group and usual care group
FIGURE 12
FIGURE 12
the sensitivity analysis of satisfaction between decision aid group and usual care group between decision aid group and usual care group
FIGURE 13
FIGURE 13
the sensitivity analysis of knowledge between decision aid group and usual care group between decision aid group and usual care group
FIGURE 14
FIGURE 14
the sensitivity analysis of informed choice between decision aid group and usual care group between decision aid group and usual care group
FIGURE 15
FIGURE 15
the sensitivity analysis of decision regret between decision aid group and usual care group between decision aid group and usual care group
FIGURE 16
FIGURE 16
Funnel of Decision conflict
FIGURE 17
FIGURE 17
Egger's test of Decision conflict
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bray, F., Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Siegel, R. L., Torre, L. A., & Jemal, A. (2018). GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 68(6), 394–424. - PubMed
    1. Collaboration, T. I. P. D. A. S. I. (2005). IPDAS 2005: Criteria for judging the quality of patients decision aids. Retrieved from http://ipdas.ohri.ca/IPDAS_checklist.pdf
    1. Garvelink, M. M., Ter Kuile, M. M., Louwe, L. A., Hilders, C., & Stiggelbout, A. M. (2017). Feasibility and effects of a decision aid about fertility preservation. Hum Fertil (Camb), 20(2), 104–112. 10.1080/14647273.2016.1254821 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Goel, V., Sawka, C. A., Thiel, E. C., Gort, E. H., & O'Connor, A. M. (2001). Randomized trial of a patient decision aid for choice of surgical treatment for breast cancer. Medical Decision Making, 21(1), 1–6. 10.1177/0272989X0102100101 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Green, M. J., Peterson, S. K., Baker, M. W., Harper, G. R., Friedman, L. C., Rubinstein, W. S., & Mauger, D. T. (2004). Effect of a computer‐based decision aid on knowledge, perceptions, and intentions about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 292(4), 442–452. 10.1001/jama.292.4.442 - DOI - PMC - PubMed