ArticleBMJ open2024
Prescriber decision-making on antithrombotic therapy after endovascular intervention for peripheral artery disease: a protocol for a discrete choice experiment.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPeripheral artery disease (PAD) is a major risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, despite surgical and endovascular treatments. Emerging evidence supports the use of immediate antithrombotic medications after endovascular intervention for PAD, however, there is a lack of consensus regarding choice and duration of antithrombotic therapy. Prescriber decision-making is a complex process, with prior studies demonstrating patient factors can influence variability in antithrombotic therapy for PAD. However, it remains unclear the relative contribution of these factors. This paper describes a planned study that aims to (1) determine the influence of patient factors on clinician preference for antithrombotic therapy following endovascular intervention and (2) compare differences in prescribing preferences between consultant vascular surgeons and trainees. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This cross-sectional survey will evaluate antithrombotic prescribing choices using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) that has been developed and piloted for this study. A list of attributes and levels was generated using a mixed-methods approach. This included an extensive literature review and semistructured interviews with prescribing clinicians. Following final selection of included attributes, specialised software was used to construct a D-efficient design for the DCE questionnaire. The electronic questionnaire will be administered to vascular trainees and consultant surgeons across Australia. These data will be analysed using multinomial logistic regression, treating the decision to prescribe antithrombotic therapy as a function of both the attributes of the two alternatives, as well as characteristics of the respondent. Latent class analysis will be used to explore heterogeneity of responses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Sydney Human Ethics committee (2023/474). The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national vascular surgical conferences. These results will be used to improve understanding how clinicians make prescribing decisions and to inform future strategy to enhance guideline-directed prescribing.
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.