Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34250574›Full record

SynthesisThe patient2022

A Systematic and Critical Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Hannah Collacott, Dian Zhang, Sebastian Heidenreich, Tommi Tervonen

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The patient, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Hannah CollacottEvidera, The Ark, 201 Talgarth Rd, London, W6 8BJ, UK.
Dian ZhangEvidera, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Sebastian HeidenreichEvidera, The Ark, 201 Talgarth Rd, London, W6 8BJ, UK.
Tommi TervonenEvidera, The Ark, 201 Talgarth Rd, London, W6 8BJ, UK. tommi.tervonen@evidera.com.ORCID 0000-0001-7303-500X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRegulators have called for greater emphasis on the role of the patient voice to inform medical product development and decision making, and expert guidelines and reports for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) both explicitly recommend the consideration of patient preferences in the management of these diseases. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used to quantify stakeholders' treatment preferences and estimate the trade-offs they are willing to make between outcomes such as treatment benefits and risks.

objectiveThe aim of this systematic literature review is to provide an up-to-date and critical review of DCEs published in asthma and COPD; specifically, we aim to evaluate the subject of preference studies conducted in asthma and COPD, what attributes have been included, stakeholders' preferences, and the consistency in reporting of instrument development, testing and reporting of results.

methodsA systematic review of published DCEs on asthma and COPD treatments was conducted using Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Studies were included if they included a DCE conducted in a relevant population (e.g. patients with asthma or COPD or their caregivers, asthma or COPD-treating clinicians, or the general population), and reported quantitative outcomes on participants' preferences. Study characteristics were summarised descriptively, and descriptive analyses of attribute categories, consistency in reporting on key criteria, and stakeholder preferences were undertaken.

resultsA total of 33 eligible studies were identified, including 28 unique DCEs. The majority (n = 20; 71%) of studies were conducted in a patient sample. Studies focused on inhaler treatments, and included attributes in five key categories: symptoms and treatment benefits (n = 23; 82%), treatment convenience (n = 19; 68%), treatment cost (n = 17; 61%), treatment risks (n = 13; 46%), and other (n = 10; 36%). Symptoms and treatment benefits were the attributes most frequently ranked as important to patients (n = 26, 72%), followed by treatment risks (n = 7, 39%). Several studies (n = 9, 32%) did not qualitatively pre-test their DCE, and a majority did not report the uncertainty in estimated outcomes (n = 18; 64%).

conclusionsDCEs in asthma and COPD have focused on treatment benefits and convenience, with less evidence generated on participants' risk tolerance. Quality criteria and reporting standards are needed to promote study quality and ensure consistency in reporting between studies.

Indexed as

AsthmaPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveChoice BehaviorHumansPatient PreferenceSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID34250574
PMCPMC8738458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.