Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34629865›Full record

ReviewPatient preference and adherence2021

Assessing Patient Preferences for Treatment Options for Pediatric Sickle Cell Disease: A Critical Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies.

Deeksha Katoch, Lakshmanan Krishnamurti

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Patient preference and adherence, 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
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Deeksha KatochDepartment of Pediatrics, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Lakshmanan KrishnamurtiAflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3242-0037
Emory University · USSUNY Downstate Health Sciences University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sickle cell disease (SCD) resulting from a mutation of the β-globin gene results in sickle deformation of the red blood cell with consequent vaso-occlusion and intravascular hemolysis. SCD results in substantial morbidity, with impaired quality of life and premature mortality. Comprehensive and supportive care, disease modifying therapies and treatments with curative intent are each associated with asymmetrical costs, burden of care, and impact on survival and quality of life. There is thus a considerable decisional dilemma regarding treatment among patients and caregivers. The objective of this review is to evaluate the literature regarding quantitative and qualitative studies of patient preferences in therapy for SCD. Numerous survey-based studies have been performed evaluating SCD patients' treatment preferences. These studies are limited, however, as they are purely descriptive in nature with limited quantitative information on the relative value of treatment alternatives. Time trade-off and standard gamble studies and health state utility studies have also been utilized to quantify patient utility especially for curative hematopoietic cell transplant. However, these studies suffer from inaccurate assumptions regarding patient preferences. Qualitative studies have garnered the patient and caregiver perspective. Qualitative studies may be limited by selective and purposive sampling, and lack of representativeness due to sample size.

Indexed as

anemiadecision-makingpatientpreferencessharedsickle cell

Identifiers

PMID34629865
PMCPMC8493010
OpenAlexW3202971084

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.