Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Cancer 1/2018

Open Access 01.12.2018 | Correction

Correction to: The effects of shared decision-making compared to usual care for prostate cancer screening decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

verfasst von: Nahara Anani Martínez-González, Stefan Neuner-Jehle, Andreas Plate, Thomas Rosemann, Oliver Senn

Erschienen in: BMC Cancer | Ausgabe 1/2018

download
DOWNLOAD
print
DRUCKEN
insite
SUCHEN
Hinweise
The original article can be found online at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12885-018-4794-7

Correction

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors notified us of a misleading data presentation in Table 4. The table’s sub header incorrectly presented the information in the first part of the table, BINARY DATA. We have therefore modified this sub header and added a second sub header to the table, corresponding to CONTINUOUS DATA.
The original publication has been corrected. Table 4 as initially published is presented below.
Table 4
Individual trial estimates not combined in meta-analyses
First author & publication year
Outcome
Measurement point
Intervention
Control
Effect estimate
SDM
mean (SD)
Total (N)
Usual Care
mean (SD)
Total (N)
SMD (95 % CI)
BINARY DATA
Patient-reported ordering of screening
  Krist, 2007 [43, 44] (Woolf, 2005)
patient-reported PSA tests ordered (patients’ exit questionnaires)
immediately after consultation
1) web-based DA
176
226
no pre-visit educational material and no DA during discussions with physicians
60
75
0.97 (0.85 to 1.11)
2) paper version of DA in 1)
151
196
60
75
0.96 (0.84 to 1.10)
Actual ordering of screening
  Landrey, 2013 [42]
PSA tests order by clinicians (chart-documented)
following doctor’s appointment
flyer
85
136
no flyer
86
147
1.07 (0.88 to 1.29)
  Krist, 2007 [43, 44] (Woolf, 2005)
physician-reported PSA tests ordered (chart-documented)
immediately after consultation
1) web-based DA
176
205
no pre-visit educational material and no DA during discussions with physicians
66
70
0.91 (0.84 to 0.99)
2) paper version of DA in 1)
155
182
66
70
0.90 (0.83 to 0.98)
Physicians’ recommendations: towards screening
  Wilkes, 2013 [41]
doctor’s recommendations towards PSA screening: unannounced standardised patients (physicians’ questionnaires)
after clinic visitb
1) MD-Ed + A
16
36
CDC educational brochures on PC
34
43
0.56 (0.38 to 0.84)
2) MD-Ed
24
41
34
43
0.74 (0.55 to 1.00)
Physicians’ recommendations: neither nor against screening
  Wilkes, 2013 [41]
doctors neither suggested nor recommended for or against PSA test: unannounced standardised patients (physicians’ questionnaires)
after clinic visitb
1) MD-Ed + A
18
36
CDC educational brochures on PC
6
43
3.58 (1.59 to 8.06)
2) MD-Ed
14
41
6
43
2.45 (1.04 to 5.76)
Patient-estimates of lifetime risks
  Gatellari, 2003 [45]
how likely men were to give a correct estimate (within 2%) of the lifetime risk of dying from PC (correct answers over incorrect answers)
unclear (questionnaires mailed 3 days post-consultations)
32-page (3085-word) evidence-based booklet
55
104
968-word pamphlet by the Australian government
3
75
13.22 (4.30 to 40.66)
how likely men were to give a correct estimate (within 10%) of the lifetime risk of developing PC (correct answers over incorrect answers)
59
104
18
108
3.40 (2.16 to 5.36)
CONTINUOUS DATA
Satisfaction with the visit
  Wilkes, 2013 [41]
patient-reported satisfaction with the visit: planned visits (sum of 5 satisfaction items: 5 = least satisfied, 20 = most satisfied)
after clinic visitb
MD-Ed + A
18 (3.00)
102
CDC educational brochures on PC
18 (3.00)
291
0.00 (-0.23 to 0.23)
patient-reported satisfaction with the visit: clinic visits by patients (sum of 5 satisfaction items: 5 = least satisfied, 20 = most satisfied)
MD-Ed
18 (2.00)
188
18 (3.00)
291
0.00 (-0.18 to 0.18)
Men’s views towards screening
  Gatellari, 2003 [45]
men’s views weighted towards or against reasons for having PSA testing (Scoring -5 to 5. Positive: weighting for; Higher: stronger weighting for; Negative: weighting against; Lower: stronger weighting against)b
unclear (questionnaires mailed 3 days post-consultations)
32-page (3085-word) evidence-based booklet
1.70 (1.58)
106
968-word pamphlet by the Australian government
1.4 (1.59)
108
0.19 (-0.08 to 0.46)
Decisional conflict
  Gatellari, 2003 [45]
decisional conflict (9-item factors contributing to uncertainty scale; higher scores = greater decisional conflict)
unclear (questionnaires mailed 3 days post-consultations)
32-page (3085-word) evidence-based booklet
21.60 (4.73)
106
968-word pamphlet by the Australian government
24.3 (4.77)
108
-0.57 (-0.84 to -0.29)
PC Prostate Cancer, SDM Shared Decision-Making, MD-Ed + A Physician Education and patient Activation, MD-Ed Physician Education, DA Decision Aid, CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, PSA Prostate Specific Antigen, n number of patients with events or number of events, N total number of patients per group, RR Relative Risk, SD Standard Deviation, SMD Standard Mean Difference, CI Confidence Intervals
aQuestionnaire adapted from an attitudinal measure of the mammography screening instrument
bMen followed-up in 6-16 weeks depending on the timing of the standardised visit: about 6 weeks after the intake survey for control physicians, 6-10 weeks for MD-Ed physicians, and 6-16 weeks for MD-Ed+A physicians
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
download
DOWNLOAD
print
DRUCKEN
Metadaten
Titel
Correction to: The effects of shared decision-making compared to usual care for prostate cancer screening decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
verfasst von
Nahara Anani Martínez-González
Stefan Neuner-Jehle
Andreas Plate
Thomas Rosemann
Oliver Senn
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2018
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Cancer / Ausgabe 1/2018
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-5029-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

BMC Cancer 1/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

25.04.2024 Nierenkarzinom Nachrichten

Nun gibt es auch Resultate zum Gesamtüberleben: Eine adjuvante Pembrolizumab-Therapie konnte in einer Phase-3-Studie das Leben von Menschen mit Nierenzellkarzinom deutlich verlängern. Die Sterberate war im Vergleich zu Placebo um 38% geringer.

Alectinib verbessert krankheitsfreies Überleben bei ALK-positivem NSCLC

25.04.2024 NSCLC Nachrichten

Das Risiko für Rezidiv oder Tod von Patienten und Patientinnen mit reseziertem ALK-positivem NSCLC ist unter einer adjuvanten Therapie mit dem Tyrosinkinase-Inhibitor Alectinib signifikant geringer als unter platinbasierter Chemotherapie.

Bei Senioren mit Prostatakarzinom auf Anämie achten!

24.04.2024 DGIM 2024 Nachrichten

Patienten, die zur Behandlung ihres Prostatakarzinoms eine Androgendeprivationstherapie erhalten, entwickeln nicht selten eine Anämie. Wer ältere Patienten internistisch mitbetreut, sollte auf diese Nebenwirkung achten.

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Müssen sich Schwangere einer Krebstherapie unterziehen, rufen Immuncheckpointinhibitoren offenbar nicht mehr unerwünschte Wirkungen hervor als andere Mittel gegen Krebs.

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.