ArticleThe patient2020
Empirical Investigation of Ranking vs Best-Worst Scaling Generated Preferences for Attributes of Quality of Life: One and the Same or Differentiable?
Article in The patient, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is best-worst scaling suitable for patient preference elicitation? A nationwide representative comparison with discrete choice experiments among patients with type 2 diabetes in China.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- What Matters Most to Patients with NSCLC When Choosing Anticancer Treatments in China? A Best-Worst Scaling Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study was to investigate the degree of inconsistency in quality-of-life attribute preference orderings generated via successive best-worst scaling (a form of ranking whereby the respondent chooses the best and worst attributes from a choice set, these attributes are then eliminated and the best and worst attributes from the reduced choice set are then chosen and this process is continued until all presented attributes are eliminated) and conventional ranking methods (whereby the respondent chooses the best, second best and third best from a choice set until all presented attributes are eliminated).
methodsAn on-line survey was developed for administration to two general population samples comprising younger people (aged 18-64 years) and older people (aged 65 years and above). Data were analysed in STATA through an empirical examination of the relative level of choice inconsistency (randomness in responses or the variability in choice outcomes not explained by attributes and their associated preference weights) for successive best-worst in comparison with the conventional ranking method for the younger and older person samples.
resultsFor the younger person sample, both methods were found to be similarly consistent. In contrast, for the older person sample, ranking performed relatively worse than best-worst scaling with more inconsistent responses (tau = 0.515, p < 0.01).
conclusionsThese findings lend some support to the hypothesis initially propagated by the developers of best-worst scaling that it is a comparatively easier choice task for respondents to undertake than a traditional ranking task.
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.