ReviewHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015
A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.
Review in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes and Attributes Patients Value When Choosing Glucose-Lowering Medications: A Mixed-Methods Study.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2024Article
- What are the Relevant Outcomes of the Periodic Health Examination? A Comparison of Citizens' and Experts' Ratings.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
- Comparing the Preferences of Patients and the General Public for Treatment Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.The patient · 2021Article
- Decision Model for Allocation of Intensive Care Unit Beds for Suspected COVID-19 Patients under Scarce Resources.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2021Article
- Hybrid Methodology to Improve Health Status Utility Values Derivation Using EQ-5D-5L and Advanced Multi-Criteria Techniques.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Health Outcome Prioritization in Alzheimer's Disease: Understanding the Ethical Landscape.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2020Review
- Patients' preferences in periodontal disease treatment elicited alongside an IQWiG benefit assessment: a feasibility study.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Article
- A patient and community-centered approach selecting endpoints for a randomized trial of a novel advance care planning tool.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Article
- Importance of hemodialysis-related outcomes: comparison of ratings by a self-help group, clinicians, and health technology assessment authors with those by a large reference group of patients.Patient preference and adherence · 2016Article
- Preferences of patients undergoing hemodialysis - results from a questionnaire-based study with 4,518 patients.Patient preference and adherence · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence synthesis has seen major methodological advances in reducing uncertainty and estimating the sizes of the effects. Much less is known about how to assess the relative value of different outcomes.
objectiveTo identify studies that assessed preferences for outcomes in health conditions.
methodsSEARCH STRATEGY: we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library in February 2014. INCLUSION CRITERIA: eligible studies investigated preferences of patients, family members, the general population or healthcare professionals for health outcomes. The intention of this review was to include studies which focus on theoretical alternatives; studies which assessed preferences for distinct treatments were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: study characteristics as study objective, health condition, participants, elicitation method, and outcomes assessed in the study were extracted. MAIN
resultsOne hundred and twenty-four studies were identified and categorized into four groups: (1) multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) (n = 71), (2) rating or ranking (n = 25), (3) utility eliciting (n = 5) and (4) studies comparing different methods (n = 23). The number of outcomes assessed by method group varied. The comparison of different methods or subgroups within one study often resulted in different hierarchies of outcomes.
conclusionsA dominant method most suitable for application in evidence syntheses was not identified. As preferences of patients differ from those of other stakeholders (especially medical professionals), the choice of the group to be questioned is consequential. Further research needs to focus on validity and applicability of the identified methods.
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.