评估乳腺癌决策辅助工具的有效性：随机临床试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。

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

机构信息

School of Nursing, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China.

Department of Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Wuhan University Second Clinical College, Wuhan, Hubei, China.

出版信息

Nurs Open. 2021 Sep;8(5):2091-2104. doi: 10.1002/nop2.741. Epub 2020 Dec 30.

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.

目的

评估决策辅助工具在乳腺癌患者治疗、预防和筛查中的效果。

设计

系统评价和荟萃分析。

方法

该综述方案在 CRD Prospero 数据库（CRD42020173028）中进行了注册。于 2020 年 1 月在 5 个数据库中进行了文献检索：PubMed、Cochrane、EMBASE、Scopus 和 Web of science data。我们使用 Cochrane 风险偏倚评估工具来评估纳入试验的文献质量，并使用 Review Manager 5.2 软件来分析数据。

结果

我们纳入了 22 项研究。与常规方法相比，决策辅助工具减少了治疗决策冲突，但对筛查决策冲突没有显著影响（WMD=-2.25，95%CI=-2.64，-1.87，p<.0001；WMD=-1.37，95%CI=-3.57，0.83，p=0.22）。两组间参与者的焦虑、决策后悔、知识、知情选择和决策满意度无统计学差异。