Background
Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

Objectives
To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

Search methods
For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

Selection criteria
We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:

A) 'choice made' attributes;

B) 'decision-making process' attributes.

Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

Main results
This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.

Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).

A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:

Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).

B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:

Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:

a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);

b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and

c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).

Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.

C) Secondary outcomes

Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.

The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

Authors' conclusions
There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.

New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

/pdf/decision-aids-for-people-facing-health-treatment-or-1j1706q17l.pdf

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Review article: free radicals, antioxidants and human disease: where are we now?

Free radicals, antioxidants, and human disease: where are we now?

Toxic oxygen free radicals have been implicated as important pathologic mediators in many clinical disorders. We discuss the chemistry of oxygen radical production and the roles of iron an...

Oxygen Radicals and Human Disease

https://www.amjmed.com/article/0002-9343(91)90279-7/pdf

Reactive oxygen species in living systems: source, biochemistry, and role in human disease.

Oxidant activity in expired breath of patients with adult respiratory distress syndrome

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/26777/0000333.pdf?sequence=1

Plasma Xanthine Oxidase Activity in Patients With Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Evidence for Adenosine Triphosphate Degradation in Critically-Ill Patients

PurposeFaculty development programs and faculty incentive systems have heightened the need to validate a connection between the quality of teaching and students' learning. This study was designed to determine the association between attending physicians' and residents' teacher ratings and th

Is there a relationship between attending physicians' and residents' teaching skills and students' examination scores?

During exercise, ATP is converted to ADP and AMP to supply energy for muscular contraction. It is then regenerated via various pathways of intermediary metabolism. However, with high levels of exercise, net ATP degradation in muscle occurs. In exercise and other clinical situations, adenine nucleotide degradation leads to an accumulation of degradative purine products including hypoxanthine. In an effort to monitor events of energy metabolism, we examined plasma hypoxanthine levels at various exercise intensities. Peak plasma hypoxanthine levels after maximal exercise (18.9 +/- 2.6 microM, mean +/- SEM) were significantly greater than resting levels (1.1 +/- 0.1 microM; p less than 0.001). Hypoxanthine levels after steady state exercise at 52, 76, and 97% of ventilatory threshold did not exceed resting levels. However, plasma hypoxanthine rose significantly after exercise at 124% of ventilatory threshold (6.3 +/- 1.0 microM; p less than 0.01) and at 152% of ventilatory threshold (17.0 +/- 3.6 microM; p less than 0.001). Exercise at subventilatory threshold intensity (74% of ventilatory threshold) for a prolonged time period, such that total work equaled that performed at 152% of ventilatory threshold, did not elevate hypoxanthine levels (0.46 +/- 0.1 microM) above resting values. We conclude that elevation of plasma hypoxanthine levels occur during exercise at intensities that exceed the ventilatory threshold and indicate that net adenine nucleotide degradation has occurred.

Cyril M. Grum

Papers

Oxidant activity in expired breath of patients with adult respiratory distress syndrome

Plasma Xanthine Oxidase Activity in Patients With Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Evidence for Adenosine Triphosphate Degradation in Critically-Ill Patients

Is there a relationship between attending physicians' and residents' teaching skills and students' examination scores?

Plasma Hypoxanthine and Exercise