The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Bedside Decision Instrument To Elicit a Patient's Preference Concerning Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer
Abstract
The objective of this study was to develop an instrument to help clinicians inform patients with breast cancer of risks and benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy as derived from clinical trials and to help the informed patient decide whether she prefers treatment or no treatment. The instrument consists of a visual aid (called the decision board) and written material. It provides detailed information on a patient's choices (chemotherapy or no chemotherapy), outcomes (recurrence or not), probabilities of outcomes and their meaning, and quality of life associated with treatment choice and outcome. The validity and reliability of the instrument were evaluated in 30 healthy female volunteers. It was first administered using standard estimates of recurrence for node-negative breast cancer (15% risk of recurrence without treatment, which is reduced to 10% with chemotherapy). A preference for treatment (or no treatment) was then elicited. The validity was evaluated by changing the information provided on risks and benefits and determining whether the preference changed in a predictable manner. To test for reliability, the instrument was administered 2 weeks later. Seventeen women chose chemotherapy and 13 chose no chemotherapy. In the former group, 14 women (82%) switched preference when the magnitude of benefit was reduced, and 16 (94%) switched when the toxicity of treatment was increased. For those women who chose not to receive chemotherapy, 12 (92%) switched when the benefit was increased and 100% switched when toxicity was eliminated. The reliability was excellent (kappa = 0.86). The instrument has been used to elicit treatment preferences in 37 newly presenting patients with high-risk, node-negative breast cancer and has been found to be acceptable and helpful to the patient.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalents
Mehrez, A., & Gafni, A. (1989) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x8900900209 · Cited by 469
Self-citation
Cited by
Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1997) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3 · Cited by 4,137
Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions
Frosch, D. L., & Kaplan, R. M. (1999) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0749-3797(99)00097-5 · Cited by 721
The Role of Chemotherapy at the End of Life: “When Is Enough, Enough?”
Harrington, S. E., & Smith, T. J. (2008) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.299.22.2667 · Cited by 280
Metadata
- Authors
- Levine, M. N., Gafni, A., Markham, B., & MacFarlane, D.
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 1992-07-01
- Volume
- 117
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 53-58
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W2095074008
- Cited by
- 280
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 37.65
- 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: A Bedside Decision Instrument To Elicit a Patient's Preference Concerning Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-117-1-53
- The paper
- Levine, M. N., Gafni, A., Markham, B., & MacFarlane, D. (1992). A Bedside Decision Instrument To Elicit a Patient's Preference Concerning Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-117-1-53
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.