Objective To assess whether the results of clinical trials on systematic reviews presented in different ways would influence postgraduates’ perception of risk and clinical decision after attending a research design course. Methods We distributed a questionnaire to all postgraduates who attended the final examination. The questionnaire presented the results of a systematic review. Data were presented in four different ways in the following order: as a relative risk reduction (RRR), as an absolute risk reduction (ARR), as the proportion of difference in event-free patients (EFP), and as the number of patients who needed to be treated to prevent one death (NNT). We asked all postgraduates to mark their decisions along a linear scale. Results We distributed and retrieved 342 questionnaires. Three were incomplete and excluded from our analyses. The results showed that the mean score and recommended level were significantly higher when data were expressed as NNT compared with RRR, ARR and EFP (Plt;0.01). There was no difference among RRR, ARR and EFP. However, 279 postgraduates’ score ranges were greater than 4 among the four different presentations. Conclusion The way of presenting data has significant influence on postgraduates’ perception of risk and their clinical decisions, even after a course teaching them about research design. Further improvements are needed for teachers on how to interprete different ways of presenting risk and their clinical importance.
Objective To investigate the attitudes of Chinese doctors towards the difficulties they have concerning the involvement of patients in decision-making about treatment. Method We surveyed 1 088 doctors at different levels (70% internal medicine, 22% general surgery, 8% gynecology) from 20 general hospitals and 5 university hospitals covering 25 provinces and cities in China, using a simple questionnaire, which we had developed. Results A total of 780 doctors returned the questionnaire and of these only 488 (62%) had completed it. The difficulties that doctors were most concerned about focused on lack of time (27%), expressing uncertainties to patients (15%), dealing with patients who have little medical knowledge (13%), eliciting patients’ preferences (12%), and establishing a stable relationship (9%). Conclusion Increasing their knowledge of patient involvement in making treatment decisions may reinforce appropriate attitudes towards this concept among doctors.
目的 探讨CT仿真内镜（CT virtual endoscopy，CTVE）在低位直肠癌术前分期中的价值。方法 收集我院2008年8月1日至2011年3月1日期间的直肠癌患者57例，术前行直肠CTVE检查，详细记录患者直肠癌周围组织浸润和淋巴结转移的情况；患者术后常规进行病理检查，比较两者结果的差异。结果 术前直肠CTVE检查与术后石蜡病理检查对直肠癌周围淋巴结转移的判断经四格表χ2检验，差异无统计学意义（χ2=2.5，P＞0.05），其对直肠癌周围淋巴结转移预测的敏感性为66.67%，特异性为93.94%。术前直肠CTVE预测直肠癌周围组织浸润和术后病理检查结果经四格表χ2检验，差异有统计学意义（χ2=4.4，P＜0.05），其对直肠癌周围组织浸润判断的敏感性为27.78%，特异性为42.86%。结论 CTVE在术前评估直肠癌周围淋巴结转移有较高的可信性，但对直肠癌周围组织浸润的评价较差。
ObjectiveTo systematically review the influencing factors of breast cancer patients in treatment decision-making. MethodsWeb of Science, PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, JBI Evidence Synthesis, CINAHL, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and CBM databases were electronically searched to collect qualitative studies about the influencing factors of breast cancer patients in treatment decision-making from inception to October 2021. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Then, the results were combined using integrating methods. ResultsA total of 13 studies were included. Sixty-seven results were extracted, with 22 results retained after incorporation and removal of duplications. The 22 results were grouped according to their similarities to form 6 categories. These categories resulted in two synthesized findings: influencing factors of patient participation in treatment decision-making and integration results and influencing factors of patients' treatment options. ConclusionBreast cancer patient participation in treatment decisions is influenced not only by internal factors, but also by family and external situational factors. When patients choose treatment, they consider not only their personal values and preferences, but also the impact of treatment on their families and their expectations. The choice is also influenced by social and cultural aspects.
ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews of the efficacy of cancer patient decision aids (PDAs) for treatment decision-making. MethodsThe PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, JBI, CNKI, VIP, CBM and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect the systematic reviews relevant to the objective from inception to September 2023. Literature screening, data extraction, methodological quality assessment of the included literature, and summary and grading of the evidence were carried out independently by two researchers, and duplication of original studies in the included systematic evaluations was investigated using the corrected covered area (CCA). ResultsA total of 17 systematic reviews were included, of which 13 (76.47%) were low- or very low-quality studies. A total of 64 pieces of evidence were included, of which only 26 (40.62%) were of moderate quality, and the original studies included in the included literature had a low degree of overlap (CCA=0.05). The results of meta-analysis showed that PDAs could increase decision-related knowledge, reduce decision conflict and regret in cancer patients' treatment decision (P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in decision satisfaction, anxiety or depression (P>0.05). ConclusionPDAs can improve cancer patients' knowledge related to treatment decision, reduce decision conflicts and regrets, and have no significant negative effects on decision preparation, satisfaction, anxiety, and depression. However, the existing systematic reviews are of low quality and limited to a few cancer types.