ArticleThe patient2022
Towards Personalising the Use of Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Discrete Choice Experiment.
Article in The patient, 2022. 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.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Biologics: Current Practice, Challenges and Opportunities - a Workshop Report.The AAPS journal · 2025Article
- Measuring Patient Preferences to Inform Clinical Trial Design: An Example in Rheumatoid Arthritis.The patient · 2025Article
- Economics and Precision Medicine.Handbook of experimental pharmacology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThere have been promising developments in technologies and associated algorithm-based prescribing ('stratified approach') to target biologics to sub-groups of people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The acceptability of using an algorithm-guided approach in practice is likely to depend on various factors.
objectiveThis study quantified preferences for an algorithm-guided approach to prescribing biologics (termed 'biologic calculator').
methodsAn online discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit preferences from patients and the public for using a 'biologic calculator' compared with conventional prescribing. Treatment approaches were described by five attributes: delay to starting treatment; positive and negative predictive value (PPV/NPV); risk of infection; and cost saving to the UK national health service. Each survey contained six choice sets asking respondents to select their preferred option from two hypothetical biologic calculators or conventional prescribing. Background questions included sociodemographics, health status and healthcare experiences. DCE data were analysed using mixed logit models.
resultsCompleted choice data were collected from 292 respondents (151 patients with RA and 142 members of the public). PPV, NPV and risk of infection were the most highly valued attributes to respondents deciding between prescribing strategies.
conclusionRespondents were generally receptive to personalised medicine in RA, but researchers developing personalised approaches should pay close attention to generating evidence on both the PPV and the NPV of their technologies.
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.