Trial reportThe patient2023
Comparing Outcomes of a Discrete Choice Experiment and Case 2 Best-Worst Scaling: An Application to Neuromuscular Disease Treatment.
Trial report in The patient, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Preferences of health professions learners: a scoping review of the use and role of DCEs in health professions education.Medical education online · 2026Article
- Patient Preferences in Neuromuscular Diseases: Insights for Future Drug Development.JIMD reports · 2026Article
- Is best-worst scaling suitable for patient preference elicitation? A nationwide representative comparison with discrete choice experiments among patients with type 2 diabetes in China.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Discrete Choice Experiment Versus Best-Worst Scaling: An Empirical Comparison in Eliciting Young People's Preferences for Web-Based Mental Health Interventions.The patient · 2025Article
- COVID-19 Vaccine Preferences in China: A Comparison of Discrete Choice Experiment and Profile Case Best-Worst Scaling.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2025Article
- An Empirical Comparison of Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-Worst Scaling to Estimate Patient Preferences in Infertility Treatment in China.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Residents' Preferences for Inclusive Commercial Health Insurance: A Comparative Study of Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-Worst Scaling in Heilongjiang Province, China.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Gender preferences for multiple attributes of soil and water conservation in Northern Rwanda.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Comparing Discrete Choice Experiment with Swing Weighting to Estimate Attribute Relative Importance: A Case Study in Lung Cancer Patient Preferences.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- Comparing the Self-Reported Acceptability of Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-Worst Scaling: An Empirical Study in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
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 at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesCase 2 best-worst scaling (BWS-2) is an increasingly popular method to elicit patient preferences. Because BWS-2 potentially has a lower cognitive burden compared with discrete choice experiments, the aim of this study was to compare treatment preference weights and relative importance scores.
methodsPatients with neuromuscular diseases completed an online survey at two different moments in time, completing one method per occasion. Patients were randomly assigned to either first a discrete choice experiment or BWS-2. Attributes included: muscle strength, energy endurance, balance, cognition, chance of blurry vision, and chance of liver damage. Multinomial logit was used to calculate overall relative importance scores and latent class logit was used to estimate heterogeneous preference weights and to calculate the relative importance scores of the attributes for each latent class.
resultsA total of 140 patients were included for analyses. Overall relative importance scores showed differences in attribute importance rankings between a discrete choice experiment and BWS-2. Latent class analyses indicated three latent classes for both methods, with a specific class in both the discrete choice experiment and BWS-2 in which (avoiding) liver damage was the most important attribute. Ex-post analyses showed that classes differed in sex, age, level of education, and disease status. The discrete choice experiment was easier to understand compared with BWS-2.
conclusionsThis study showed that using a discrete choice experiment and BWS-2 leads to different outcomes, both in preference weights as well as in relative importance scores, which might have been caused by the different framing of risks in BWS-2. However, a latent class analysis revealed similar latent classes between methods. Careful consideration about method selection is required, while keeping the specific decision context in mind and pilot testing the methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.