ArticleSystematic reviews2021
Discrete choice experiment to determine preferences of decision-makers in healthcare for different formats of rapid reviews.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical Practice Guideline for Best Practice Management of Pediatric Patients by Chiropractors: Results of a Delphi Consensus Process.Journal of integrative and complementary medicine · 2024Guideline
- Discrete Choice Experiment on Financial Incentives for Engaging Young Adults in Vaping Cessation Programs.Substance use & misuse · 2025Trial
- Using discrete choice experiment to investigate public preferences for osteoporosis community-level management strategies in China.Journal of bone and mineral metabolism · 2026Article
- Rural residents' preference for inclusive commercial health insurance in China: a discrete choice experiment.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- The introduction and adoption of artificial intelligence in systematic literature reviews: a discrete choice experiment.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Patient preferences for the diagnosis of coeliac disease: A discrete choice experiment.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Article
- Assessing willingness to pay for children's COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare providers and users using a theory-based discrete choice experiment.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- General practitioner preferences for telehealth consultations in Australia: a pilot survey and discrete choice experiment.Primary health care research & development · 2024Article
- Patient Decision Making in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Discrete Choice Experiment Examining Graft Preference.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2023Article
- Modular literature review: a novel systematic search and review method to support priority setting in health policy and practice.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
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
backgroundTime-saving formats of evidence syntheses have been developed to fulfill healthcare policymakers' demands for timely evidence-based information. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) with decision-makers and people involved in the preparation of evidence syntheses was undertaken to elicit preferences for methodological shortcuts in the conduct of abbreviated reviews.
methodsD-efficient scenarios, each containing 14 pairwise comparisons, were designed for the DCE: the development of an evidence synthesis in 20 working days (scenario 1) and 12 months (scenario 2), respectively. Six attributes (number of databases, number of reviewers during screening, publication period, number of reviewers during data extraction, full-text analysis, types of HTA domains) with 2 to 3 levels each were defined. These were presented to the target population in an online survey. The relative importance of the individual attributes was determined using logistic regression models.
resultsScenario 1 was completed by 36 participants and scenario 2 by 26 participants. The linearity assumption was confirmed by the full model. In both scenarios, the linear difference model showed a preference for higher levels for "number of reviewers during data extraction", followed by "number of reviewers during screening" and "full-text analysis". Subgroup analyses showed that preferences were influenced by participation in the preparation of evidence syntheses.
conclusionThe surveyed persons expressed preferences for quality standards in the process of literature screening and data extraction.
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.