ArticleCurrent medical research and opinion2018
Developing an instrument to assess patient preferences for benefits and risks of treating acute myeloid leukemia to promote patient-focused drug development.
Article in Current medical research and opinion, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05061095 (Understanding What Matters Most to Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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.
Understanding What Matters Most to Patients: Establishing the Validity of a Best-Worst Scaling Survey
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- American Society of Hematology 2025 guidelines for treating newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in older adults.Blood advances · 2026Guideline
- Pooled it
- Treatment Preferences for Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Harbin, China: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Patients, Caregivers, and Hematologists.The patient · 2026Article
- Accelerating cancer treatment optimisation: A multistakeholder roadmap from the Cancer Medicines Forum.Journal of cancer policy · 2026Review
- Patient Preferences for Treatment in Relapsed/Refractory Acute Leukemia: A Multinational Discrete Choice Experiment.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Pretesting Discrete-Choice Experiments: A Guide for Researchers.The patient · 2024Article
- Development of a Patient-Centered Preference Tool for Patients With Hematologic Malignancies: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Utilising Patient and Public Involvement in Stated Preference Research in Health: Learning from the Existing Literature and a Case Study.The patient · 2021Article
- Prioritizing the worries of AML patients: Quantifying patient experience using best-worst scaling.Psycho-oncology · 2021Article
- Age at Diagnosis and Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in AML: A Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Meaningful Benefits.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020Article
- Patient-Centered Insights on Treatment Decision Making and Living with Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Other Hematologic Cancers.The patient · 2020Article
- Using Social Media to Uncover Treatment Experiences and Decisions in Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia or Myelodysplastic Syndrome Who Are Ineligible for Intensive Chemotherapy: Patient-Centric Qualitative Data Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Article
- Developing a Novel Values Elicitation Measure for Clinical Use in Older Adults with Hematologic Malignancies: Values-HM.MDM policy & practiceArticle
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objective Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a progressive blood cancer with few effective treatment options. As part of a patient-focused drug development (PFDD) initiative led by the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (LLS), this study sought to use a community-centered approach to develop and pilot an instrument to measure patient preferences for the benefits and risks of treating AML. Methods Instrument development was informed by a literature review, engagement with expert stakeholders (n = 12), engagement with community stakeholders, and pre-testing. A discrete-choice experiment (DCE), in which participants made choices between 16 pairs of hypothetical treatments, was developed with five attributes: event-free survival, complete remission, time in hospital, short-term side-effects, and long-term side-effects. A pilot test was conducted and analyzed using conditional logistic regression. Results are presented using relative attribute importance (RAI) scores. Results Patients with AML and caregivers were engaged in developing (n = 15), pre-testing (n = 13), and pilot testing (n = 26) the instrument. The pilot included patients with AML (n = 18) and caregivers of living or deceased patients with AML (n = 8). Participants had a mean age of 50 years (range =24-81), and were mostly college educated (n = 22), privately insured (n = 21), and employed (n = 13). Based on the DCE, complete remission was identified as the most important attribute (RAI =10), followed by event-free survival (3.7), time in hospital (2.8), long-term side-effects (2.3), and short-term side-effects (2.1). Conclusion The mixed-methods approach to PFDD was welcomed by all stakeholders and there was strong endorsement to implement this DCE as part of a national survey. Key points for decision makers The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (LLS) initiated an independent effort to promote patient-focused drug development (PFDD). This study presents the development and piloting of a preference study as a first step in this initiative. Results of this pilot study were used to guide a PFDD meeting to discuss the lived experience of patients and caregivers affected by AML. Productive engagement by all patients, caregivers, and stakeholders throughout the process resulted in strong endorsement of the project's approach and recognition of the need to conduct a national study.
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.