ArticlePloS one2016
Developing a Valuation Function for the Preference-Based Multiple Sclerosis Index: Comparison of Standard Gamble and Rating Scale.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond the canonical view: steroid receptor network plasticity and mechanosensitive chromatin integration in breast cancer.NAR cancer · 2026Review
- Practical applications of methods to incorporate patient preferences into medical decision models: a scoping review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- A scoping review to create a framework for the steps in developing condition-specific preference-based instruments de novo or from an existing non-preference-based instrument: use of item response theory or Rasch analysis.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2024Article
- Challenges of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Novel Therapeutics for Inherited Retinal Diseases.American journal of ophthalmology · 2022Review
- Development of a Patient-Reported Palliative Care-Specific Health Classification System: The POS-E.The patient · 2017Article
- In support of an individualized approach to assessing quality of life: comparison between Patient Generated Index and standardized measures across four health conditions.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe standard gamble (SG) and rating scale (RS) are two approaches that can be employed to elicit health state preferences from patients in order to inform decision making. The objectives of this study were: (i) to contribute evidence towards the similarities and differences in the SG and the RS to reflect patient preferences, and (ii) to develop a multi-attribute utility function (MAUF) (i.e., scoring algorithm) for the PBMSI. STUDY
designTwo samples were recruited for the study. The first sample provided cross-sectional data to generate the preference weights which were then used to develop (D) the MAUFD. The distribution of SG and RS were compared across levels of perceived difficulty. The second sample provided additional data to validate (V) the MAUF, termed MAUFV.
resultsThe mean RS values ranged from 0.39 to 0.65, whereas the mean SG values were much higher ranging from 0.80 to 0.91. Correlations between the two methods were very low ranging from -0.29 to 0.15. Bland-Altman plots revealed the extent of differences in values produced by the two methods.
conclusionIn contemplating trade-offs in the selection of a preference-based elicitation approach for a MAUF that could guide clinical decision making, results suggest the RS is preferable in terms of feasibility and validity for MS patients. The PBMSI with patient preferences shows promise as a measure of health-related quality of life for MS.
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.