Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 226

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Helping Patients Make Informed Choices: A Randomized Trial of a Decision Aid for Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Lymph Node-Negative Breast Cancer

Whelan, T., Sawka, C., Levine, M., Gafni, A., Reyno, L., Willan, A., Julian, J., Dent, S., Abu-Zahra, H., Chouinard, E., Tozer, R., Pritchard, K., Bodendorfer, I.·2003·JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In recent years, patients have indicated a desire for more information about their disease and to be involved in making decisions about their care. We developed an aid called the "Decision Board" to help clinicians inform patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer of the risks and benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy. We determined whether adding the Decision Board to the medical consultation improved patient knowledge and satisfaction compared with the medical consultation alone. METHODS: Between October 1995 and March 2000, 176 women with lymph node-negative breast cancer who were candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive the Decision Board plus the medical consultation (83 patients) or the medical consultation alone (93 patients). One week after the consultation, patients completed a questionnaire assessing their knowledge about breast cancer and chemotherapy. Satisfaction with decision making was assessed 1 week and 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization, and differences between groups were analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of variance. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Patients in the Decision Board arm were better informed about breast cancer and adjuvant chemotherapy than patients in the control arm (mean knowledge score = 80.2 [on a scale of 0-100], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 77.1 to 83.3, and 71.7, 95% CI = 69.0 to 74.4, respectively; P<.001). Over the entire study period, satisfaction with decision making was higher for patients in the Decision Board arm than for patients in the control arm (P =.032). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the number of patients who chose adjuvant chemotherapy (77% and 70% for patients in the Decision Board arm and those in the control arm, respectively; P =.303). CONCLUSION: When making decisions regarding adjuvant chemotherapy, patients with early breast cancer who had been exposed to the Decision Board had better knowledge of the disease and treatment options and greater satisfaction with their decision making than those who received the standard consultation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/95.8.581

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 226

Metadata

Authors
Whelan, T., Sawka, C., Levine, M., Gafni, A., Reyno, L., Willan, A., Julian, J., Dent, S., Abu-Zahra, H., Chouinard, E., Tozer, R., Pritchard, K., & Bodendorfer, I.
Venue
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2003-04-16
Volume
95
Issue
8
Pages
581-587
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2115001570
Cited by
226
References
1
FWCI
27.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Helping Patients Make Informed Choices: A Randomized Trial of a Decision Aid for Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Lymph Node-Negative Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/95.8.581
The paper
Whelan, T., Sawka, C., Levine, M., Gafni, A., Reyno, L., Willan, A., Julian, J., Dent, S., Abu-Zahra, H., Chouinard, E., Tozer, R., Pritchard, K., & Bodendorfer, I. (2003). Helping Patients Make Informed Choices: A Randomized Trial of a Decision Aid for Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Lymph Node-Negative Breast Cancer. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/95.8.581

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.