ArticleThe patient2022
The Application of Preference Elicitation Methods in Clinical Trial Design to Quantify Trade-Offs: A Scoping Review.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Shared decision-making with patients with limited health literacy - experiences and needs of GPs regarding values clarification.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivePatients can express preferences for different treatment options in a healthcare context, and these can be measured with quantitative preference elicitation methods.
objectiveOur objective was to conduct a scoping review to determine how preference elicitation methods have been used in the design of clinical trials.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review to identify primary research studies, involving any health condition, that used quantitative preference elicitation methods, including direct utility-based approaches, and stated preference studies, to value health trade-offs in the context of clinical trial design. Studies were identified by screening existing systematic and scoping reviews and with a primary literature search in MEDLINE from 2010 to the present. We extracted study characteristics and the application of preference elicitation methods to clinical trial design according to the SPIRIT checklist from primary studies and summarized the findings descriptively.
resultsWe identified 18 eligible studies. The included studies applied patient preferences to five areas of clinical trial design: intervention selection (n = 1), designing N-of-1 trials (n = 1), outcome selection and weighting composite and ordinal outcomes (n = 12), sample size calculations (n = 2), and recruitment (n = 2). Using preference elicitation methods led to different decisions being made, such as using preference-weighted composite outcomes instead of equally weighted composite outcomes.
conclusionPreference elicitation methods are infrequently used to design clinical trials but may lead to changes throughout the trial that could affect the evidence generated. Future work should consider measurement challenges and explore stakeholder perceptions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34927216What 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.