ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2022
Partial Personalization of Medical Treatment Decisions: Adverse Effects and Possible Solutions.
Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPersonalizing medical treatment decisions based on patient-specific risks and/or preferences can improve health outcomes. Decision makers frequently select treatments based on partial personalization (e.g., personalization based on risks but not preferences or vice versa) due to a lack of data about patient-specific risks and preferences. However, partially personalizing treatment decisions based on a subset of patient risks and/or preferences can result in worse population-level health outcomes than no personalization and can increase the variance of population-level health outcomes.
methodsWe develop a new method for partially personalizing treatment decisions that avoids these problems. Using a case study of antipsychotic treatment for schizophrenia, as well as 4 additional illustrative examples, we demonstrate the adverse effects and our method for avoiding them.
resultsFor the schizophrenia treatment case study, using a previously proposed modeling approach for personalizing treatment decisions and using only a subset of patient preferences regarding treatment efficacy and side effects, mean population-level health outcomes decreased by 0.04 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 95% credible interval [crI]: 0.02-0.06) per patient compared with no personalization. Using our new method and considering the same subset of patient preferences, mean population-level health outcomes increased by 0.01 QALYs (95% crI: 0.00-0.03) per patient as compared with no personalization, and the variance decreased. LIMITATIONS: We assumed a linear and additive utility function.
conclusionsSelecting personalized treatments for patients should be done in a way that does not decrease expected population-level health outcomes and does not increase their variance, thereby resulting in worse risk-adjusted, population-level health outcomes compared with treatment selection with no personalization. Our method can be used to ensure this, thereby helping patients realize the benefits of treatment personalization without the potential harms.
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.