ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2012
The variability of patient preferences.
Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can We Enhance Shared Decision-making for Periacetabular Osteotomy Surgery? A Qualitative Study of Patient Experiences.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Article
- Treatment for Rotator Cuff Tear Is Influenced by Demographics and Characteristics of the Area Where Patients Live.JB & JS open access · 2018Article
- Not the Last Word: Unnecessary Surgery Can Never Be Done Well.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2017Article
- Not the Last Word: Choosing Wisely.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2015Article
- Applying evidence-based medicine principles to hip fracture management.Frontiers in surgery · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWide variation in procedure utilization suggests that surgical indications might not be rigorously defined. An alternative explanation is that surgical outcomes are valued differently across groups. When a patient, using the information provided by the surgeon, places high value on successful results or is indifferent to the costs of ineffective treatment, the treatment threshold is lower and more surgery will be chosen. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Is there a high variation in patients' preferences and, therefore, high variation in treatment thresholds? Do people poorly estimate their own treatment thresholds?
methodsI presented a hypothetical scenario describing a diagnostically uncertain meniscus injury to 100 college students, asking them to rate the value of the four end points based on treatment choice (arthroscopy chosen/declined) and post hoc knowledge of the true diagnosis (tear present/absent). From those data, I calculated treatment thresholds. Subjects also estimated their treatment threshold directly.
resultsThe calculated treatment thresholds ranged from 4% to 88%. A discrepancy of at least 20% between the calculated and subject-estimated thresholds was present in 61 subjects.
conclusionsThere is great variance in the treatment threshold reported; additionally, many subjects poorly predicted their own calculated treatment thresholds. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Variability in patient preferences for outcome is an important, but perhaps underestimated, clinical parameter. Meaningful assessment of patient preferences when recommending treatment or creating clinical practice guidelines will lead to better shared decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.