MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306836208 · doi:10.31083/j.rcm2310353

Systematic Review of Patient Decision Aids for Stroke Prevention Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Management

2022· review· en· W4306836208 on OpenAlexafffund
Justin Baers, Joel Adekanye, Glen Hazlewood, Jan M. Davies, Jeff K. Caird, Stephen B. Wilton

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)Management of atrial fibrillationDecision aidsIntensive care medicineCardiologyAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is a major cause of stroke. Oral anticoagulation can reduce the risk of AF-associated stroke by 65% but it remains underused. Stroke prevention therapy in patients with AF has been considered a good target for shared decision making with patient decision aids as it is a long-term, preference-sensitive decision with known risk-benefit trade-offs. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize published literature on the effectiveness of patient decision aids on the choice of and adherence to stroke prevention therapy in individuals with AF. Methods: We conducted a structured literature search for prospective studies evaluating decision aids for AF stroke prevention therapy in adult patients with nonvalvular AF. We included studies that compared those exposed to a decision aid with a control condition for outcomes including choice of therapy, adherence, decisional conflict and patient knowledge. Quantitative meta-analysis was not feasible due to excessive between-study heterogeneity. Results: Eight studies met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Six studies were randomized clinical trials and two were pre-post comparisons. Of the 8 studies, each evaluated a different decision aid, with only three including all contemporary oral anticoagulant drugs. All decision aids improved AF knowledge compared to baseline or control and decision aids reduced decisional conflict in four of six studies. However, there were inconsistent effects of the studied decision aids on initiation of oral anticoagulation. Adherence to initial stroke prevention therapy choice appeared to benefit from decision aid use in 2 studies that addressed this issue. Conclusions: Decision aids for stroke prevention increased AF patients' knowledge and decisional confidence but had variable impacts on choice of and adherence to stroke prevention therapy. The results highlight the need for well-designed decision aids that present patients with all contemporary therapeutic options.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.009
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.266
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207