ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2020
Patients' Preferences after Recurrent Coronary Narrowing: Discrete Choice Experiments.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Exploring Pet Owner Preferences in Order to Assess the Role of Cost and Quality of Life in Anti-Pruritic Treatment Plan Selection for Dog Owners.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Pet Owners' Preferences for Quality of Life Improvements and Costs Related to Innovative Therapies in Feline Pain Associated with Osteoarthritis-A Quantitative Survey.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Dog Owners' Perceptions of the Convenience and Value of Chewable Oclacitinib: Quantitative Survey Data from an International Survey.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelecting the optimal treatment strategy for coronary revascularization is challenging. A crucial endpoint to be considered when making this choice is the necessity to repeat revascularization since it is much more frequent after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
objectiveThis study intends to provide insights on patients' preferences for revascularization, strategies in the perspective of patients who had to repeat revascularization.
methodsWe selected a sample of patients who had undergone PCI and were hospitalized to repeat coronary revascularization and elicited their preferences for a new PCI or CABG. Perioperative death, long-term death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization were used to design scenarios describing hypothetical treatments that were labeled as PCI or CABG. PCI was always presented as the option with lower perioperative death risk and a higher necessity to repeat procedure. A conditional logit model was used to analyze patients' choices using R software. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsA total of 144 patients participated, most of them (73.7%) preferred CABG over PCI (p < 0.001). The regression coefficients were statistically significant for PCI label, PCI long-term death, CABG perioperative death, CABG long-term death and repeat CABG. The PCI label was the most important parameter (p < 0.05).
conclusionMost patients who face the necessity to repeat coronary revascularization reject a new PCI, considering realistic levels of risks and benefits. Incorporating patients' preferences into benefit-risk calculation and treatment recommendations could enhance patient-centered care.
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.