StaceyDVolkRJLeadsIEU. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: evidence update 2.0. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:729–33.
2.
BonnerCTrevenaLJGaissmaierW, et al. Current best practice for presenting probabilities in patient decision aids: fundamental principles. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:821–33.
3.
HoffmannTCBakhitMDurandMAPerestelo-PerezLSaundersCBritoJP. Basing information on comprehensive, critically appraised, and up-to-date syntheses of the scientific evidence: an update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:755–67.
4.
Joseph-WilliamsNAbhyankarPBolandL, et al. What works in implementing patient decision aids in routine clinical settings? A rapid realist review and update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:907–37.
5.
MartinRWBrogard AndersenSO’BrienMA, et al. Providing balanced information about options in patient decision aids: an update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:780–800.
6.
MuscatDMSmithJMacO, et al. Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids: an update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:848–69.
7.
RahnACJullJBolandL, et al. Guidance and/or decision coaching with patient decision aids: scoping reviews to inform the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Med Decis Making. 2021;41:938–53.
8.
ShafferVABrodneySGavaruzziT, et al. Do personal stories make patient decision aids more effective? An update from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:897–906.
9.
ThompsonRPaskinsZMainBG, et al. Addressing conflicts of interest in health and medicine: current evidence and implications for patient decision aid development. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:768–79.
10.
TrenamanLJansenJBlumenthal-BarbyJ, et al. Are we improving? Update and critical appraisal of the reporting of decision process and quality measures in trials evaluating patient decision aids. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:954–9.
11.
TrevenaLJBonnerCOkanY, et al. Current challenges when using numbers in patient decision aids: advanced concepts. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:834–47.
12.
WittemanHOMakiKGVaissonG, et al. Systematic development of patient decision aids: an update from the IPDAS Collaboration. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:736–54.
13.
WittemanHONdjaboueRVaissonG, et al. Clarifying values: an updated and expanded systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:801–20.
14.
YenRWSmithJEngelJ, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient decision aids for socially disadvantaged populations: update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Med Decis Making. 2021;41:870–96.
15.
QaseemAForlandFMacbethF, et al. Guidelines International Network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:525–31.
16.
LeLorierJGregoireGBenhaddadALapierreJDerderianF. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:536–42.
17.
IoannidisJPHaidichABPappaM, et al. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA. 2001;286:821–30.
18.
SepuchaKRSchollI. Measuring shared decision making: a review of constructs, measures, and opportunities for cardiovascular care. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7:620–6.
19.
OwensDKLohrKNAtkinsD, et al. AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions—agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:513–23.
20.
SawayaGFGuirguis-BlakeJLeFevreMHarrisRPetittiD; on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Update on the methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: estimating certainty and magnitude of net benefit. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:871–5.
