SynthesisThe patient2024
Treatment Preference Research in Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies.
Synthesis in The patient, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patients' Experiences of Atopic Dermatitis and Nemolizumab Treatment: An In-Trial Interview Study Embedded in a Phase 3 Clinical Trial (ARCADIA).The patient · 2025Trial
- Patient preferences in the benefit-risk assessment of atopic dermatitis treatments in China: A nationwide survey.JAAD international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment preference research can support shared and informed decision making for currently available atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments, and simultaneously guide research and development for future therapies. In this systematic literature review, we aimed to provide an overview of preferences for AD treatments.
methodsThis systematic literature review was conducted in the Medline and Embase (via Ovid) databases, supplemented by manual searching. Quantitative research published from 2010 to September 2023 that investigated preferences for AD treatments were included. Quality assessment was conducted by using the purpose, respondents, explanation, findings, significance checklist, and a checklist developed by the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research.
resultsIn total, 207 references were screened after removing duplicates and 15 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in the US, followed by European countries. On average, people directly or indirectly affected by AD rate efficacy and treatment-related risk as the most important criteria when choosing an AD therapy. Participants are willing to increase risks in order to have a higher chance of achieving a certain benefit, e.g. reduction in itch or clearer skin. Participants have preferences for different modes of administration. On average, 68% (all full-text studies) and 87% (only discrete choice experiments [DCEs]) of quality criteria per reference were rated as fulfilled. DCEs received generally higher quality assessment scores than non-DCEs.
conclusionsThis review revealed that AD treatment preference research is limited. Diverse study designs hampered comparison and synthesis of the results. We recommend conducting more DCEs in this field to increase the likelihood of AD patients receiving the therapy that best fits their individual needs and preferences. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: This protocol was published in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023468757).
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.