Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Shared Decision Making in Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Existing Literature

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) is a popular care paradigm between patients and clinicians to facilitate treatment agreement by building consensus and sharing information. Decisional aids (DAs) are tools frequently used in SDM for improving knowledge sharing and facilitating the decision process. The use and outcomes of decisional aids in surgery, however, have not been investigated. This study investigates whether SDM in surgery benefits any type of surgical patient compared with non-SDM treatment using patient-defined outcomes, such as an increase in knowledge and decisional satisfaction, as well as decreased decisional regret and anxiety.

Methods

The search strategy was developed with a medical librarian to address the question of whether SDM in surgery benefits any type of surgical patient compared with non-SDM treatment using patient-defined outcomes. Seven databases (Medline [Ovid], Embase [Ovid], Cochrane [Wiley], Africa-Wide [EBSCO], Global Health [Ovid], Global Index Medicus (WHO), Web of Science [Clarivate Analytics]) were searched from inception until September 9th, 2019, with no language restriction. A two-person title and abstract screen was performed, followed by a full-text publication review. A DerSimonian–Laird random effects model was used for the meta-analysis, with heterogeneity established. Mean and standard deviation were collected for all study outcomes. Study eligibility was determined with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Bias Risk Assessment Tool.

Results

In total, 6060 studies were retrieved. After duplicates were removed, 5303 titles and abstracts were screened, and of 356 full texts reviewed, 42 studies were included in the analysis. Heterogeneity was high in three of six variables (surgery chosen, decisional conflict, and knowledge gained), moderate in two (decisional anxiety and decisional satisfaction), and low in one (decisional regret). For all except the rates of surgical intervention, the results for decisional conflict, knowledge gained, decisional satisfaction, and decisional anxiety were significant at a 95% confidence interval. Decisional conflict decreased in 20/24 of the papers that recorded it; rates of choosing surgery decreased in 8 of the 11; and patient knowledge increased in 19 of the 22 that recorded it. The majority of papers had risk of bias, however, with the evidence of generally low quality.

Conclusion

The results suggest that SDM in surgery is associated with greater quality of patient satisfaction and value agreement, leading to decreased conflict and anxiety, and increased knowledge and translation. This data is useful in guiding the development of SDM protocols for use in surgical disciplines.

Review Registration

Registered on PROSPERO—ID: CRD42018097286 [13].

Plain Language Summary

Shared decision making (SDM) has been used in various healthcare disciplines to benefit patient care but has not been explored in surgical disciplines. This study investigated whether SDM in surgery benefits surgical patients compared with non-SDM treatment using patient-defined outcomes. Patients who used SDM in surgery were found to have less conflict and more satisfaction making decisions, as well as increased knowledge about their surgery compared with non-SDM patients. This study suggests that SDM is likely to benefit surgical patients to have better care outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):681–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Joosten EAG, DeFuentes-Merillas L, de Weert GH, Sensky T, van der Staak CPF, de Jong CAJ. Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychother Psychosom. 2008;77(4):219–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. O’Connor AM, Bennett CL, Stacey D, Barry M, Col NF, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. O’Connor AM, Bennett CL, Stacey D, Barry M, Col NF, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60(3):301–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Society of Surgical Oncology 71st Annual Cancer Symposium. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(1):1–230. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6349-1.

  7. Arterburn D, Wellman R, Westbrook E, Rutter C, Ross T, McCulloch D, et al. Introducing decision aids at group health was linked to sharply lower hip and knee surgery rates and costs. Health Aff. 2012;31(9):2094–104.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Patzer RE, McPherson L, Basu M, Mohan S, Wolf M, Chiles M, et al. Effect of the iChoose Kidney decision aid in improving knowledge about treatment options among transplant candidates: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Transplant. 2018;18(8):1954–65.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Boss EF, Mehta N, Nagarajan N, Links A, Benke JR, Berger Z, et al. Shared decision making and choice for elective surgical care. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;154(3):405–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Frosch DL, Kaplan RM. Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions. Am J Prev Med. 1999;17(4):285–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. PRISMA. http://prisma-statement.org/prismastatement/Checklist.aspx. Accessed 6 Nov 2018.

  13. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=97286. Accessed 6 Nov 2018.

  14. Shirk JD, Crespi CM, Saucedo JD, Lambrechts S, Dahan E, Kaplan R, Saigal C. Does patient preference measurement in decision aids improve cecisional Conflict? A randomized trial in men with prostate cancer. Patient. 2017;10(6):785–98.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ibrahim SA, Blum M, Lee G-C, Mooar P, Medvedeva E, Collier A, Richardson D. Effect of a decision aid on access to total knee replacement for black patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(1):e164225.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Wong SSM, Thornton JG, Gbolade B, Bekker HL. A randomised controlled trial of a decision aid leaflet to facilitate women’s choice between pregnancy termination methods. BJOG. 2006;113:688–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Vuorma S, Rissanen P, Aalto AM, Hurskainen R, Kujansuu E, Teperi J. Impact of patient information booklet on treatment decision—a randomized trial among women with heavy menstruation. Health Expect. 2004;7(4):327–37.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Kennedy AD, Sculpher MJ, Coulter A, Dwyer N, Rees M, Abrams KR, Horsley S, Cowley D, Kidson C, Kirwin C, Naish C, Stirrat G. Effects of decision aids for menorrhagia on treatment choices, health outcomes, and costs: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288:2701–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brito JP, Castaneda-Guarderas A, Gionfriddo MR, Ospina NS, Maraka S, Dean DS, Castro MR, Castro RM, Fatourechi V, Gharib H, Stan MN, Branda ME, Bahn RS, Montori VM. Development and pilot testing of an encounter tool for shared decision making about the treatment of graves’ disease. Thyroid. 2015;25(11):1191–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Shorten A, Shorten B, Fagerlin A, Illuzzi J, Kennedy HP, Pettker C, Raju D, Whittemore R. A study to assess the feasibility of implementing a web-based decision aid for birth after cesarean to increase opportunities for shared decision making in ethnically diverse settings. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2019;61(1):78–87.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Knops AM, Goossens A, Ubbink DT, Balm R, Koelemay MJ, Vahl AC, de Nie AJ, van den Akker PJ, Willems MC, Koedam NA, de Haes JC, Bossuyt PM, Legemate DA, Decaid Trial Group. A decision aid regarding treatment options for patients with an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm: a randomised clinical trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;48(3):276–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sepucha KR, Atlas SJ, Chang Y, Freiberg A, Malchau H, Mangla M, Rubash H, Simmons LH, Cha T. Informed, patient-centered decisions associated with better health outcomes in orthopedics: prospective cohort study. Med Decis Mak. 2018;38(8):1018–26.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sawka AM, Straus S, Rodin G, Heus L, Brierley JD, Tsang RW, Rotstein L, Ezzat S, Segal P, Gafni A, Thorpe KE, Goldstein DP. Randomized controlled trial of a computerized decision aid on adjuvant radioactive iodine treatment for patients with early-stage papillary thyroid cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(23):2906–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Korteland NM, Ahmed Y, Koolbergen DR, Brouwer M, Heer F, Kluin J, Bruggemans EF, Klautz RJ, Stiggelbout AM, Bucx JJ, Roos-Hesselink JW, Polak P, Markou T, Broek I, Ligthart R, Bogers AJ, Takkenberg JJ. Does the use of a decision aid improve decision making in prosthetic heart valve selection? A multicenter randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017;10(2):e003178.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schwalm JD, Stacey D, Pericak D, Natarajan MK. Radial artery versus femoral artery access options in coronary angiogram procedures: randomized controlled trial of a patient-decision aid. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5(3):260–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Goel V, Sawka CA, Thiel EC, Gort EH, O’Connor AM. Randomized trial of a patient decision aid for choice of surgical treatment for breast cancer. Med Decis Mak. 2001;21(1):1–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. de Achaval S, Fraenkel L, Volk RJ, Cox V, Suarez-Almazor ME. Impact of educational and patient decision aids on decisional conflict associated with total knee arthroplasty. Arthritis Care Resusc (Hoboken). 2012;64(2):229–37.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hoffman A, Bartels S. Launching a virtual decision lab: development and field-testing of a web-based patient decision support research platform. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2014;14:112.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Khoder W, Hom E, Guanzon A, Rose S, Hale D, Heit M. Patient satisfaction and regret with decision differ between outcomes in the composite definition of success after reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(4):613–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Brazelli HD, O’Sullivan DM, Forrest A, Greene JF. Effect of a decision aid on decision making for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(4):231–5.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Causarano N, Platt J, Baxter NN, Bagher S, Jones JM, Metcalfe KA, Hofer SOP, O’Neill AC, Cheng T, Starenkyj E, Zhong T. Pre-consultation educational group intervention to improve shared decision-making for postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Support Cancer Care. 2015;23:1365–75.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Osaka W, Nakayama K. Effect of a decision aid with patient narratives in reducing decisional conflict in choice for surgery among early-stage breast cancer patients: a three-arm randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;13(3):550–62.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Luan A, Hui KJ, Remington AC, Liu X, Lee GK. Effects of a novel decision aid for breast reconstruction: a randomized prospective trial. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76:249–54.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Coylewright M, Dick S, Zmolek B, Askelin J, Hawkins E, Branda M, Inselman JW, Zeballos-Palacios C, Shah ND, Hess EP, LeBlanc A, Montori VM, Ting HH. PCI choice decision aid for stable coronary artery disease: a randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016;9(6):767–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. LeBlanc A, Wang AT, Wyatt K, Branda ME, Shah ND, Houten H, Pencille L, Wermers R, Montori VM. Encounter decision aid vs clinical decision support or usual care to support patient-centered treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial II. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0128063.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Belkora J, Volz S, Loth M, Teng A, Zarin-Pass M, Moore D, Esserman L. Coaching patients in the use of decision and communication aids: RE-AIM evaluation of a patient support program. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(1):209.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Vandemheen KL, O’Connor A, Bell SC, Freitag A, Bye P, Jeanneret A, Berthiaume Y, Brown N, Wilcox P, Ryan G, Brager N, Rabin H, Morrison N, Gibson P, Jackson M, Paterson N, Middleton P, Aaron SD. Randomized trial of a decision aid for patients with cystic fibrosis considering lung transplantation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009;180(8):761–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Raynes-Greenow CH, Roberts CL, Nassar N, Trevena L. Assisting informed decision making for labour analgesia: a randomised controlled trial of a decision aid for labour analgesia versus a pamphlet. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010;10:15.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Whelan T, Levine M, Willan A, Gafni A, Sanders K, Mirsky D, Chambers S, O’Brien MA, Reid S, Dubois S. Effect of a decision aid on knowledge and treatment decision making for breast cancer surgery: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2004;292(4):435–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Metcalfe K, Zhong TN, O’Neill AC, McCready D, Chan LD, Butler K, Brennenstuhl S, Hofer SOP. Predictors of uptake of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with nonhereditary breast cancer. Cancer. 2019;125(22):3966–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kearing S, Berg SZ, Lurie JD. Can decision support help patients with spinal stenosis make a treatment choice? A prospective study assessing the impact of a patient decision aid and health coaching. Spine. 2016;41(7):563–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Trenaman L, Stacey D, Bryan S, Taljaard M, Hawker G, Dervin G, Tugwell P, Bansback N. Decision aids for patients considering total joint replacement: a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2017;25(10):1615–22.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Wilson A, Winner M, Yahanda A, Andreatos N, Ronnekleiv-Kelly S, Pawlik TM. Factors associated with decisional regret among patients undergoing major thoracic and abdominal operations. Surgery. 2017;161(4):1058–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Carr MM, Derr JB, Karikari K. Decisional conflict and regret in parents whose children undergo tonsillectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;155(5):863–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. van Tol-Geerdink JJ, Leer JW, Wijburg CJ, van Oort IM, Vergunst H, van Lin EJ, Witjes JA, Stalmeier PF. Does a decision aid for prostate cancer affect different aspects of decisional regret, assessed with new regret scales? A randomized, controlled trial. Health Expect. 2016;19(2):459–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sawka AM, Straus S, Rodin G, Tsang RW, Brierley JD, Rotstein L, Segal P, Gafni A, Ezzat S, Goldstein DP. Exploring the relationship between patients’ information preference style and knowledge acquisition process in a computerized patient decision aid randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015;15:48.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Fraval A, Chandrananth J, Chong YM, Coventry LS, Tran P. Internet based patient education improves informed consent for elective orthopaedic surgery: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:14.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Lam WW, Chan M, Or A, Kwong A, Suen D, Fielding R. Reducing treatment decision conflict difficulties in breast cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(23):2879–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Werner DO, LeBlanc A, Kadimpati S, Vickers KS, Shi Y, Montori VM. Decision aid for cigarette smokers scheduled for elective surgery. Anesthesiology. 2015;123(10):18–28.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Juraskova I, Butow P, Fisher A, Bonner C, Anderson C, Bu S, Scarlet J, Stockler MR, Wetzig N, Ung O, Campbell I. Development and piloting of a decision aid for women considering participation in the sentinel node biopsy versus axillary clearance 2 breast cancer trial. Clin Trials. 2015;12(4):409–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Volkmann ER, FitzGerald JD. Reducing gender disparities in post-total knee arthroplasty expectations through a decision aid. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16(2):18–24.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Nassar N, Roberts CL, Raynes-Greenow CH, Barratt A, Peat B. Evaluation of a decision aid for women with breech presentation at term: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;114(3):325–33.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Serpico V, Liepert AE, Boucher K, Fouts DL, Anderson L, Pell J, Neumayer L. The effect of previsit education in breast cancer patients: a study of a shared-decision-making tool. Am J Surg. 2016;82(3):259–65.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Basu, Moha, Rachel E. Patzer, Laura McPherson, Sumit Mohan, Michael Wolf, Mariana Chiles, and Allison Russell et al. 2018. "Effect Of The Ichoose Kidney Decision Aid In Improving Knowledge About Treatment Options Among Transplant Candidates: A Randomized Controlled Trial". American Journal Of Transplantation 18 (8): 1954-1965.

  55. Volk ML, Roney M, Fagerlin A. Pilot test of a patient decision aid about liver transplant organ quality. Liver Transplant. 2014;20:850–5.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Shue J, Karia RJ, Cardone D, Samuels J, Shah M, Slover JD. A randomized controlled trial of two distinct shared decision-making aids for hip and knee osteoarthritis in an ethnically diverse patient population. Value Health. 2016;19(4):487–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Cooper Z, Hevelone N, Sarhan M, Quinn T, Bader A. Identifying patient characteristics associated with deficits in surgical decision making. J Patient Saf. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Stiggelbout AM, Weijden TVD, Frosch D, Legare F, Montori VM, et al. Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare. BMJ. 2012;344(271):e256.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1361–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Kriston L, Scholl I, Hölzel L, Simon D, Loh A, Härter M. The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(1):94–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Taylor LJ, Johnson SK, Nabozny MJ, Tucholka JL, Steffens NM, Kwekkeboom KL, et al. Barriers to goal-concordant care for older patients with acute surgical illness: communication patterns extrinsic to decision aids. Ann Surg. 2018;267(4):677–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15(1):25–30.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Higgins J, Green S. Chapter 7: selecting studies and collecting data. In: Cochrane handbook of systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_7/7_selecting_studies_and_collecting_data.htm.

  64. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Cumming G. Understanding the new statistics: effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. London: Routledge; 2017. p. 536.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Kuss O, Koch A. Meta-analysis macros for SAS. Comput Stat Data Anal. 1996;22(3):325–33.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Sedgwick P. How to read a forest plot in a meta-analysis. BMJ. 2015:h4028.

  68. Baijens SWE, Huppelschoten AG, Van Dillen J, Aarts JWM. Improving shared decision-making in a clinical obstetric ward by using the three questions intervention, a pilot study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):283.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Mowle S, Wensing M, Wilkinson C, Kinnersley P, et al. Measuring the involvement of patients in shared decision-making: a systematic review of instruments. Patient Educ Couns. 2001;43(1):5–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Hoving C, Visser A, Mullen PD, van den Borne B. A history of patient education by health professionals in Europe and North America: from authority to shared decision making education. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(3):275–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. O’Connor AM, Légaré F, Stacey D. Risk communication in practice: the contribution of decision aids. BMJ. 2003;327(7417):736–40.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Brehaut JC, O’Connor AM, Wood TJ, Hack TF, Siminoff L, Gordon E, et al. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Mak. 2003;23(4):281–92.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Donegan S, Williamson P, D’Alessandro U, Tudur Smith C. Assessing key assumptions of network meta-analysis: a review of methods. Res Synth Methods. 2013;4(4):291–323.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Paraskeva N, Guest E, Lewis-Smith H, Harcourt D. Assessing the effectiveness of interventions to support patient decision making about breast reconstruction: a systematic review. Breast. 2018;40:97–105.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Kennedy ADM. On what basis should the effectiveness of decision aids be judged? Health Expect. 2003;6(3):255–68.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Report of the AMA Council on Medical Service to the AMA House of Delegates. WMJ. 1998;97(1):33–6.

  77. Boudourakis LD, Wang TS, Roman SA, Desai R, Sosa JA. Evolution of the surgeon-volume, patient-outcome relationship. Ann Surg. 2009;250(1):159–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI. Error in trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA. 2011;306(10):1088.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Niburski K, Guadagno E, Mohtashami S, Poenaru D. Aids for shared decision-making in surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of existing evidence. In: International Shared Decision Making Conference. Abstract Accepted.

  80. Weng H-C, Steed JF, Yu S-W, Liu Y-T, Hsu C-C, Yu T-J, et al. The effect of surgeon empathy and emotional intelligence on patient satisfaction. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2011;16(5):591–600.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Violette PD, Agoritsas T, Alexander P, Riikonen J, Santti H, Agarwal A, et al. Decision aids for localized prostate cancer treatment choice: systematic review and meta-analysis. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(3):239–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Austin CA, Mohottige D, Sudore RL, Smith AK, Hanson LC. Tools to promote shared decision making in serious illness: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(7):1213–21.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The breakdown of the authors’ work is as follows: Kacper Niburski: literature review, data analysis; manuscript drafting; review and editing. Elena Guadagno: search strategy, literature review, manuscript review and editing. Samira Abbasholizadeh-Rahimi: background research, manuscript review and editing. Dan Poenaru: primary investigator, literature review, concept design, manuscript review and editing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. McGill Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Kacper Niburski

  2. Division of Pediatric Surgery, McGill University Health Center and McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Elena Guadagno & Dan Poenaru

  3. Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Samira Abbasgholizadeh-Rahimi

Authors
  1. Kacper Niburski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elena Guadagno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samira Abbasgholizadeh-Rahimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dan Poenaru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kacper Niburski.

Ethics declarations

Declarations

This study received no funding or external support. The authors’ potential conflicts of interest can be found below: Kacper Niburski: no conflict of interest. Elena Guadagno: no conflict of interest. Samira Abbasholizadeh-Rahimi: Dr Samira Abbasholizadeh-Rahimi has focused most of her research on artificial intelligence and SDM. She is an affiliated scientist at Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research of the Jewish General Hospital. Dan Poenaru: Dr Dan Poenaru is known for his work on ethical surgical decision making, as well as on disability scores in surgery. His work has focused on SDM recently.

Data Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon request. The methodology is openly available at PRISMA [12], and the effects model used is the well known DerSimonian–Laird random effects model [65].

Additional information

Digital features

To view digital features for this article go to https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12722495.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 451 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Niburski, K., Guadagno, E., Abbasgholizadeh-Rahimi, S. et al. Shared Decision Making in Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Existing Literature. Patient 13, 667–681 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00443-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00443-6

Search

Navigation