ArticleBMJ open2016
Eliciting patient preferences, priorities and trade-offs for outcomes following kidney transplantation: a pilot best-worst scaling survey.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. 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.
- Emerging Concepts in Managing Malignancy in Kidney Transplant Patients.Seminars in nephrology · 2022Review
- Cancer post kidney transplant: the question of risk.Journal of nephrology · 2020Article
- Assessment of kidney transplant suitability for patients with prior cancers: is it time for a rethink?Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2019Review
- A Scoping Review of Key Health Items in Self-Report Instruments Used Among Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.The patient · 2019Article
- The Patient Perspectives on Future Therapeutic Options in NASH and Patient Needs.Frontiers in medicine · 2019Article
- Long-term outcomes of kidney transplant recipients with end-stage kidney disease attributed to presumed/advanced glomerulonephritis or unknown cause.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Toward Establishing Core Outcome Domains For Trials in Kidney Transplantation: Report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Kidney Transplantation Consensus Workshops.Transplantation · 2017Article
- Research Priorities for Palliative Care for Older Adults with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease.Journal of palliative medicine · 2017Article
- Opportunities for Engaging Patients in Kidney Research.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2017Review
- Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Transplantation: A Global Initiative to Develop a Core Outcome Set for Trials in Kidney Transplantation.Transplantation direct · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEliciting preferences and trade-offs that patients may make to achieve important outcomes, can assist in developing patient-centred research and care. The pilot study aimed to test the feasibility of a case 2 best-worst scaling survey (BWS) to elicit recipient with kidney transplantation preferences after transplantation.
designPreferences for graft survival and dying, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, infection and side effects (gastrointestinal, weight-gain and appearance) were assessed in recipients with transplantation using a BWS (20 scenarios of nine outcomes). Participants chose 'best' and 'worst' outcomes. Responses were analysed using a multinomial logit model. Selected participants were interviewed. OUTCOMES: Attribute coefficients and survey completion error rates.
results81 recipients with transplantation were approached, and 39 (48%), mean age 50.5 years, completed the BWS. 4 (10%) surveys were invalid with major errors and of 35 remaining, 7 of 1400 (0.5%) choices were missing. -23 (59%) took >20 min to complete the survey. 1 was unable to finish, and 1 did not understand the survey. 2 (5%) found it very hard and 14 (35%) moderately hard. Most attribute coefficients were significant (p<0.05) and showed face validity. Graft survival was most important with normalised coefficients from 1 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.11) to 0.06 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.16) for 30 and 1 year duration, respectively. Attribute level coefficients decreased with increasing risk of adverse outcomes. Error rates of 20% and 2% were estimated for dominant attributes '100% risk of dying' and '30 years graft survival', respectively. 7 participants were interviewed regarding counterintuitive selection of '100% risk of dying' as a 'best' outcome. Misunderstanding, not linking dying to graft survival and aversion to dialysis were reasons given.
conclusionsRecipients with transplant recipients successfully completed a complex case 2 BWS with attribute coefficients having face validity with respect to duration of graft survival and risk of adverse outcomes. Areas for refinement to reduce complexity in design have been identified.
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.