BackgroundProstate cancer is a leading cause of cancer among men. Because screening for prostate cancer is a controversial issue, many experts in the field have defended the use of shared decision making using validated decision aids, which can be presented in different formats (eg, written, multimedia, Web). Recent studies have concluded that decision aids improve knowledge and reduce decisional conflict.ObjectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of using Web-based decision aids to support men’s prostate cancer screening decisions in comparison with usual care and other formats of decision aids.MethodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases up to November 2016. This search identified randomized controlled trials, which assessed Web-based decision aids for men making a prostate cancer screening decision and reported quality of decision-making outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Using a random-effects model, meta-analyses were conducted pooling results using mean differences (MD), standardized mean differences (SMD), and relative risks (RR).ResultsOf 2406 unique citations, 7 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and participant/personnel blinding were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on seven items, two studies had high risk of bias for one item. Compared to usual care, Web-based decision aids increased knowledge (SMD 0.46; 95% CI 0.18-0.75), reduced decisional conflict (MD –7.07%; 95% CI –9.44 to –4.71), and reduced the practitioner control role in the decision-making process (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.31-0.81). Web-based decision aids compared to printed decision aids yielded no differences in knowledge, decisional conflict, and participation in decision or screening behaviors. Compared to video decision aids, Web-based decision aids showed lower average knowledge scores (SMD –0.50; 95% CI –0.88 to –0.12) and a slight decrease in prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01-1.25).ConclusionsAccording to this analysis, Web-based decision aids performed similarly to alternative formats (ie, printed, video) for the assessed decision-quality outcomes. The low cost, readiness, availability, and anonymity of the Web can be an advantage for increasing access to decision aids that support prostate cancer screening decisions among men.

Background: Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding emerges as a major complication of using antiplatelet agents and/ or anticoagulants and represents a clinical challenge in patients undergoing these therapies.Aim: To characterize patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding related to antithrombotics and their management, and to determine clinical predictors of adverse outcomes.Methods: Retrospective cohort of adults who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy after nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding from 2010 to 2012. The outcomes were compared between patients exposed and not exposed to antithrombotics.Results: Five hundred and forty-eight patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (67% men; mean age 66.5 ± 16.4 years) were included, of which 43% received antithrombotics. Most patients had comorbidities. Peptic ulcer was the main diagnosis and endoscopic therapy was performed in 46% of cases. The 30-day mortality rate was 7.7% (n = 42), and 36% were bleeding-related. The recurrence rate was 9% and 14% of patients with initial endoscopic treatment needed endoscopic retreatment. There were no significant differences between the exposed and non-exposed groups in most outcomes. Co-morbidities, hemodynamic instability, high Rockall score, low hemoglobin (7.76 ± 2.72 g/dL) and higher international normalized ratio (1.63 ± 1.13) were associated significantly with mortality in a univariate analysis.Conclusions: Adverse outcomes were not associated with antithrombotic use. The management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding constitutes a challenge to clinical performance optimization and clinical cooperation.

BACKGROUND Prostate cancer is a leading cause of cancer among men. Because screening for prostate cancer is a controversial issue, many experts in the field have defended the use of shared decision making using validated decision aids, which can be presented in different formats (eg, written, multimedia, Web). Recent studies have concluded that decision aids improve knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. OBJECTIVE This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of using Web-based decision aids to support men’s prostate cancer screening decisions in comparison with usual care and other formats of decision aids. METHODS We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases up to November 2016. This search identified randomized controlled trials, which assessed Web-based decision aids for men making a prostate cancer screening decision and reported quality of decision-making outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Using a random-effects model, meta-analyses were conducted pooling results using mean differences (MD), standardized mean differences (SMD), and relative risks (RR). RESULTS Of 2406 unique citations, 7 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and participant/personnel blinding were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on seven items, two studies had high risk of bias for one item. Compared to usual care, Web-based decision aids increased knowledge (SMD 0.46; 95% CI 0.18-0.75), reduced decisional conflict (MD –7.07%; 95% CI –9.44 to –4.71), and reduced the practitioner control role in the decision-making process (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.31-0.81). Web-based decision aids compared to printed decision aids yielded no differences in knowledge, decisional conflict, and participation in decision or screening behaviors. Compared to video decision aids, Web-based decision aids showed lower average knowledge scores (SMD –0.50; 95% CI –0.88 to –0.12) and a slight decrease in prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01-1.25). CONCLUSIONS According to this analysis, Web-based decision aids performed similarly to alternative formats (ie, printed, video) for the assessed decision-quality outcomes. The low cost, readiness, availability, and anonymity of the Web can be an advantage for increasing access to decision aids that support prostate cancer screening decisions among men.