ArticleThe patient2022
Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: 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 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Understanding Patient Preferences for Medication Process Attributes: A Systematic Literature Review.The patient · 2026Pooled it
- Preferences of Cancer Survivors for Follow-Up Care: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- What Next for the Science of Patient Preference? Interoperability, Standardization, and Transferability.The patient · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveSystematic reviews of discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) are being increasingly conducted. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and describe the methodologies that have been used to summarize results across DCEs.
methodsWe searched the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to March 18, 2021, to identify English-language systematic reviews of patient preferences that included at least two DCEs and extracted data on attribute importance. The methods used to summarize results across DCEs were classified into narrative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative (meta-analytic) approaches and compared. Approaches to characterize the extent of preference heterogeneity were also described.
resultsFrom 7362 unique records, we identified 54 eligible reviews from 2010 to Mar 2021, across a broad range of health conditions. Most (83%) used a narrative approach to summarize findings of DCEs, often citing differences in studies as the reason for not formally pooling findings. Semi-quantitative approaches included summarizing the frequency of the most important attributes, the frequency of attribute statistical significance, or tabulated comparisons of attribute importance for each pair of attributes. One review conducted a meta-analysis using the maximum acceptable risk. While reviews often commented on the heterogeneity of patient preferences, few (6%) addressed this systematically across studies.
conclusionWhile not commonly used, several semi-quantitative and one quantitative approach for synthesizing results of DCEs were identified, which may be useful for generating summary estimates across DCEs when appropriate. Further work is needed to assess the validity and usefulness of these approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35829927What 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.