ArticlePloS one2021
Patient preferences in the treatment of hemophilia A: A latent class analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2021. 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
- Discrete Choice Experiment Versus Best-Worst Scaling: An Empirical Comparison in Eliciting Young People's Preferences for Web-Based Mental Health Interventions.The patient · 2025Article
- Haemophilia in France: Modelisation of the Clinical Pathway for Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Patient and Caregiver Preferences for Long-Term Prophylactic Treatment of Bleeds in Haemophilia: A Discrete-Choice Experiment.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of HemophiliaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine subgroup-specific treatment preferences and characteristics of patients with hemophilia A.
methodsBest-Worst Scaling (BWS) Case 3 (four attributes: application type; bleeding frequencies/year; inhibitor development risk; thromboembolic events of hemophilia A treatment risk) conducted via online survey. Respondents chose the best and the worst option of three treatment alternatives. Data were analyzed via latent class model (LCM), allowing capture of heterogeneity in the sample. Respondents were grouped into a predefined number of classes with distinct preferences.
resultsThe final dataset contained 57 respondents. LCM analysis segmented the sample into two classes with heterogeneous preferences. Preferences within each were homogeneous. For class 1, the most decisive factor was bleeding frequency/year. Respondents seemed to focus mainly on this in their choice decisions. With some distance, inhibitor development was the second most important. The remaining attributes were of far less importance for respondents in this class. Respondents in class 2 based their choice decisions primarily on inhibitor development, also followed, by some distance, the second most important attribute bleeding frequency/year. There was statistical significance (P < 0.05) between the number of annual bleedings and the probability of class membership.
conclusionsThe LCM analysis addresses heterogeneity in respondents' choice decisions, which helps to tailor treatment alternatives to individual needs. Study results support clinical and allocative decision-making and improve the quality of interpretation of clinical data.
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.