Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38862272›Full record

ReviewClinical and translational allergy2024

Embedding patients' values and preferences in guideline development for allergic diseases: The case study of Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma 2024.

Rafael José Vieira, Bernardo Sousa-Pinto, Antonio Bognanni, Juan José Yepes-Nuñez, Yuan Zhang, Justyna Lityńska, Ewelina Sadowska, Ewa Borowiack, Boleslaw Samolinski, Alkis Togias and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical and translational allergy, 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

13 authors.

Rafael José VieiraDepartment of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences (MEDCIDS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1834-3055
Bernardo Sousa-PintoDepartment of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences (MEDCIDS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Antonio BognanniDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Juan José Yepes-NuñezSchool of Medicine, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.
Yuan ZhangDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Justyna LityńskaEvidence Prime, Kraków, Poland.
Ewelina SadowskaEvidence Prime, Kraków, Poland.
Ewa BorowiackEvidence Prime, Kraków, Poland.
Boleslaw SamolinskiDepartment of Prevention of Environmental Hazards, Allergology and Immunology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Alkis TogiasDivision of Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation (DAIT), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Torsten ZuberbierInstitute of Allergology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1466-8875
Jean BousquetInstitute of Allergology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4061-4766
Holger J SchünemannDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recommendations for or against the use of interventions need to consider both desirable and undesirable effects as well as patients' values and preferences (V&P). In the decision-making context, patients' V&P represent the relative importance people place on the outcomes resulting from a decision. Therefore, the balance between desirable and undesirable effects from an intervention should depend not only on the difference between benefits and harms but also on the value that patients place on them. V&P are therefore one of the criteria to be considered when formulating guideline recommendations in the Evidence-to-Decision framework developed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Working Group. Patients' V&P may be quantified through utilities, which can be elicited using direct methods (e.g., standard gamble or time trade-off) or indirect methods (using validated instruments to measure health-related quality of life, such as EQ-5D). The GRADE approach recommends conducting systematic reviews to summarise all the available evidence and assess the degree of certainty on V&P. In this article, we discuss the importance of considering patients' V&P and provide examples of how they are considered in the 2024 person-centred Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines.

Indexed as

allergic rhinitisGRADEguidelinesutilityvalues and preferences

Identifiers

PMID38862272
PMCPMC11166500

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.