Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36326189›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2023

Method for Calculating the Simultaneous Maximum Acceptable Risk Threshold (SMART) from Discrete-Choice Experiment Benefit-Risk Studies.

Angelyn Otteson Fairchild, Shelby D Reed, Juan Marcos Gonzalez

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. US Retina Specialists' Preferences for Geographic Atrophy Treatment.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
    Article
  2. US Patients' Preferences for Geographic Atrophy Treatment.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Angelyn Otteson FairchildUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5548-5987
Shelby D ReedDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7654-4464
Juan Marcos GonzalezDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5386-0907
Clinical Research Institute · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical decisions require weighing expected benefits of treatment against multiple adverse outcomes under uncertainty (i.e., risks) that must be accepted as a bundle. However, conventional maximum acceptable risk (MAR) estimates derived from discrete-choice experiment benefit-risk studies evaluate the acceptance of individual risks, assuming other risks are fixed, potentially leading decision makers to misinterpret levels of risk acceptance.

designUsing simulations and a published discrete-choice experiment, we demonstrate a method for identifying multidimensional risk-tolerance measures given a treatment level of benefit.

resultsSimultaneous Maximum Acceptable Risk Thresholds (SMART) represents combinations of risks that would be jointly accepted in exchange for specific treatment benefits. The framework shows how the expectation of utility associated with treatments that involve multiple risks are related even when preferences for potential adverse events are independent. We find that the form of the marginal effects of adverse-event probabilities on the expected utility of treatment determines the magnitude of differences between SMART and conventional single-outcome MAR estimates. LIMITATIONS: Preferences for potential adverse events not considered in a study or preferences for adverse-event attributes held constant in risk-tolerance calculations may affect estimated risk tolerance. Further research is needed to understand the right balance between realistically reflecting clinical treatments with many potential adverse events and the cognitive burden of evaluating risk-risk tradeoffs in research and in practice. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: SMART analysis should be considered in preference studies evaluating the joint acceptance of multiple potential adverse events. HIGHLIGHTS: Conventional approaches to calculate maximum-acceptable risk (MAR) using discrete-choice experiment data account for 1 adverse-event risk at a time, requiring that decision makers infer the acceptability of treatments when patients are exposed to multiple risks simultaneously.The Simultaneous Maximum Acceptable Risk Threshold (SMART) maps combinations of adverse-event risks that would be jointly acceptable given a specific treatment benefit and provides a transparent and precise portrayal of acceptance of multiple risks.Risk levels that would be accepted using individual MAR estimates might not be acceptable when simultaneous risks are considered, especially when marginal expected disutility of risk is decreasing nonlinearly with risk probabilities.Preference researchers should calculate SMARTs in any discrete-choice study in which 2 or more adverse-event risks are presented, particularly if risk preferences are nonlinear.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorPatient PreferenceHumansProbabilityRisk AssessmentUncertaintydiscrete choice experimentmaximum acceptable risk (mar)patient preferencessimultaneous maximum acceptable risk threshold (smart)

Identifiers

PMID36326189
PMCPMC9827493
OpenAlexW4308000081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.