Skip to main content

Table 2 Methodological features of included studies

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

First author & publication year Country, design & funding Outcome definition Inclusion (1) & exclusion (2) criteria Study size Sample size calculation and power Comparable at baseline Adequate random sequence generation Adequate allocation concealment Adequate blinding Adequate follow-up Attrition, % (range) ITT data
Wilkes, 2013 [41] USA, cluster RCT, non-profit Primary & Secondary 1 N ≥ 200 yes yes unclear yes HCP: yes
Participants: yes
OA: unclear
noa ≤20% (0–20%) yesb
Landrey, 2013 [42] USA, parallel RCT, non-profit Primary & Secondary 1, 2 N ≥ 200 nr yes unclear nr HCP: nr
Participants: nr
OA: yes
yes ≥20% (6.60–51.16%) no
Krist, 2007 [43, 44](Woolf, 2005) USA, parallel RCT, non-profit Primary & Secondary 1, 2 N ≥ 200 nr Partialc yes yes HCP: no
Participants: nr
OA: unclear
yes < 20% (0–13.29%)d yesb
Gatellari, 2003 [45] Australia, parallel RCT, non-profit Primary 1 N ≥ 200 ire yes yes yes HCP: yes
Participants: yes
OA: unclear
yes ≥20% (13.71–27.82%) no
  1. ir incomplete reporting, nr not reported, HCP Healthcare Professionals, OA Outcome Assessors, ITT Intention To Treat
  2. aFollow-up was driven by the timing of the standardised patient visit and varied from 6 to 16 weeks depending on the study arm
  3. bWilkes 2013: ITT for physician-reported screening behaviour and role in decision-making, doctors’ recommendations towards screening, physician-reported outcomes. Krist 2007: ITT for decisional conflict, PSA tests ordered by physicians or self-reported by patients, but unclear for other outcomes
  4. cMore physicians from the website and brochure groups reported to know the group patients were in, with a ratio of 1:3:3 between groups. This was intentionally done to be free of other potential biases
  5. dUnclear for two outcomes
  6. eReported on power only