ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024
Research methodologies for eliciting patients' preferences in invasive procedures: a scoping review.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 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.
- Shared decision-making with patients with limited health literacy - experiences and needs of GPs regarding values clarification.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Critical differences among stakeholders in definitions of success following inguinal hernia repair in older adults.Surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndpoints that patients and clinicians consider important may differ based on patients' preferences and values. Several methods are available to elicit patient preferences in a succinct and methodologically valid manner. PURPOSE: We conducted a scoping review of methods used to elicit patient preferences in invasive procedures to provide a framework for researchers and clinicians to incorporate these measures into future efforts.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and health and psychological instruments database were searched from inception until September 2020. Articles that examined patient preferences for any invasive procedure were eligible for inclusion. Selection and extraction were completed in duplicate. Preference elicitation methods were identified and summarized.
resultsThree hundred ninety-four articles (n = 76,921 patients) were included representing several surgical specialties. Of included studies, 11.7% (n = 46) used both quantitative and qualitative methods, 81.2% (n = 320) used quantitative methods only, and 7.1% (n = 28) used qualitative methods only to elicit preferences. The most frequently employed quantitative method to elicit preferences was simple choice selection, while one-on-one interviews with participants was the most frequently used qualitative method. Preference elicitation was the primary outcome in 74.6% (n = 294) of included studies.
conclusionThere are several methods to elicit patient preferences in surgical research. Qualitative methods are valuable for exploring views and generating consensus statements. Quantitative methods are better suited for assessing relative preferences, establishing preference thresholds, or ascertaining the presence of preferences. The choice of method should align with the specific research objectives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39470867What 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.