ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2015
CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR SCANNING MODALITY TO DIAGNOSE FOCAL LIVER LESIONS.
Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- Patient Preferences in Diagnostic Imaging: A Scoping Review.The patient · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDifferences in the process of using liver imaging technologies might be important to patients. This study aimed to investigate preferences for scanning modalities used in diagnosing focal liver lesions.
methodsA discrete choice experiment was administered to 504 adults aged 25 ≥years. Respondents made repeated choices between two hypothetical scans, described according to waiting time for scan and results, procedure type, the chance of minor side-effects, and whether further scanning procedures were likely to be required. Choice data were analyzed using mixed-logit models with respondent characteristics used to explain preference heterogeneity.
resultsRespondents preferred shorter waiting times, the procedure to be undertaken with a handheld scanner on a couch instead of within a body scanner, no side-effects, and no follow–up scans (p≤.01). The average respondent was willing to wait an additional 2 weeks for the scan if it resulted in avoiding side-effects, 1.5 weeks to avoid further procedures or to be told the results immediately, and 1 week to have the scan performed on a couch with a handheld scanner. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed in the strength of preference for desirable imaging characteristics.
conclusionsAn average individual belonging to a general population sub–group most likely to require imaging to characterize focal liver lesions in the United Kingdom would prefer contrast–enhanced ultrasound over magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography. Insights into the patient perspective around differential characteristics of imaging modalities have the potential to be used to guide recommendations around the use of these technologie
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.