Estimating preferences and willingness to pay for pharmacogenetic testing in populations who are medically underserved: a discrete choice experiment.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Quantifying patient preferences for inpatient pharmacist consultation: a multi-center discrete choice experiment in Sichuan, China.Frontiers in public health · 2026
   Article
2. Cancer patients' perspectives and practices regarding pharmacogenomic testing and its cost.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026
   Article
3. Implementation of clinical pharmacogenetic testing in medically underserved patients: a narrative review.Pharmacogenomics
   Review

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as