Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Correction
  • Open Access

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

  • 1Email author,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1
BMC Cancer201818:1196

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-5029-7

  • Received: 1 November 2018
  • Accepted: 1 November 2018
  • Published:

The original article was published in BMC Cancer 2018 18:1015

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

Notes

Declarations

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.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute of Primary Care, University of Zurich and University Hospital of Zurich, Pestalozzistrasse 24, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland

Reference

  1. Martínez-González NA, et al. The effects of shared decision-making compared to usual care for prostate cancer screening decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:1015. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4794-7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement