Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38418997›Full record

ArticleBMC gastroenterology2024

Scoping review of values elicitation tools for treatment decisions in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Gabrielle Ritaccio, A Sidney Barritt Iv, Jamie L Conklin, Daniel R Richardson, Donna M Evon, Hanna K Sanoff, Ethan Basch, Stephanie B Wheeler, Andrew M Moon

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gabrielle RitaccioDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, 8009 Burnett Womack Bldg, CB#7584, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7584, USA.
A Sidney Barritt IvDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, 8009 Burnett Womack Bldg, CB#7584, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7584, USA.
Jamie L ConklinHealth Sciences Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Daniel R RichardsonDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Donna M EvonDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, 8009 Burnett Womack Bldg, CB#7584, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7584, USA.
Hanna K SanoffLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Ethan BaschLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Stephanie B WheelerLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Andrew M MoonDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, 8009 Burnett Womack Bldg, CB#7584, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7584, USA. Andrew.Moon@unchealth.unc.edu.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTreatment choices in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) involve consideration of tradeoffs between the benefits, toxicities, inconvenience, and costs. Stated preference elicitation methods have been used in the medical field to help evaluate complex treatment decision-making. The aim of this study was to conduct a scoping review to assess the evidence base for the use of preference elicitation tools or willingness to pay/willingness to accept methods for HCC treatment decision-making from both the patient and provider perspective.

methodsWe performed a scoping review to identify abstracts or manuscripts focused on the role preference elicitation tools or willingness to pay/willingness to accept methods for HCC treatment options among patients, caregivers, and/or providers. Two researchers independently screened full-text references and resolved conflicts through discussion. We summarized key findings, including the type and setting of preference-elicitation tools used for HCC treatment decisions.

resultsTen published abstracts or manuscripts evaluated the role of preference elicitation tools for HCC treatments. The studies revealed several attributes that are considered by patients and providers making HCC treatment decisions. Many of the studies reviewed suggested that while patients place the most value on extending their overall survival, they are willing to forgo overall survival to avoid risks of treatments and maintain quality of life. Studies of physicians and surgeons found that provider preferences are dependent on patient characteristics, provider specialty, and surgeon or hospital-related factors.

conclusionThis scoping review explored both patient and physician preferences towards treatment modalities in all stages of HCC. The studies revealed a large scope of potential attributes that may be important to patients and that many patients are willing to forgo survival to maintain quality of life. Further research should explore both preference elicitation of currently available and emerging therapies for HCC as well as the use of this data to develop patient-facing tools to assist in navigating treatment options.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularLiver NeoplasmsPatient PreferenceClinical Decision-MakingDecision MakingHumansQuality of LifeDecision aidsDiscrete choice experimentHepatocellular carcinomaProbability trade-offShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID38418997
PMCPMC10900684
OpenAlexW4392239543

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.