Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34567476›Full record

ArticleJournal of market access & health policy2021

Bright line or lottery? On significance and value in medical decision making.

Jörg Mahlich, Srirangan Dheban

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of market access & health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jörg MahlichMiltenyi Biomedicine, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany & Dice - University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1110-2793
Srirangan DhebanSrirangan Dheban, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that using p-value thresholds as the basis for making decision on health care spending is not appropriate. In the context of medical decision making, we argue that patient preferences need to be a stronger factor. Depending on attitudes to risk, patients might prefer a medical treatment that performs on average worse than a comparator but offers a small probability of a large gain such as a cure. However, what has been labeled 'value of hope' is not yet fully reflected in the decision-making process of drug approval and health technology assessment (HTA). Therefore, patient risk preferences should be formally incorporated within the decision-making framework for regulatory and reimbursement decisions.

Indexed as

patient preferencesrisk attitudesstatistical significanceValue of hope

Identifiers

PMID34567476
PMCPMC8462922

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.