Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39873903›Full record

ReviewThe patient2025

What Next for the Science of Patient Preference? Interoperability, Standardization, and Transferability.

Kevin Marsh, Juan Marcos Gonzalez Sepulveda, Conny Berlin, Bennett Levitan, Marco Boeri, Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Norah L Crossnohere, Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno, Barry Liden, Isabelle Stoeckert and 3 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The patient, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Kevin MarshEvidera, London, UK. kevin.marsh@thermofisher.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7912-9485
Juan Marcos Gonzalez SepulvedaDuke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Conny BerlinNovartis, Basel, Switzerland.
Bennett LevitanJanssen Research & Development, Washington Crossing, PA, USA.
Marco BoeriOPEN Health, Belfast, UK.
Catharina G M Groothuis-OudshoornUniversity of Twente, Twente, The Netherlands.
Norah L CrossnohereThe Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Cecilia Jimenez-MorenoKielo Research, York, UK.
Barry LidenUSC Schaeffer Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Isabelle StoeckertBayer, Wuppertal, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.
Jorien VeldwijkErasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Stephen WattPfizer, New York City, NY, USA.
Brett HauberPfizer, New York City, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Using patient preference information (PPI) to incorporate patient voices into the drug development lifecycle can help align therapies with the needs and values of patients. However, several barriers have limited the use of PPI, including a lack of clarity on its use by decision-makers, a need for greater decision-maker trust in PPI, and a lack of time, budgets, and access to specialist expertise. The value proposition for PPI could be enhanced by making it FAIR: Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. To support the development of a research agenda to deliver FAIR PPI, we reviewed related endeavors in the development of repositories of existing studies, disease models, benefit transfer, and common data standards. We concluded that developing FAIR PPI would require advances in the science of PPI, including the establishment of a consortium, mirroring the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) or Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OPOM), to develop PPI data standards, and research into the sources of variation in patient preferences. This will require the science of PPI to graduate from being a body of empirical observations to developing theories that explain variations in patient preferences, simultaneously driving both efficiency in the generation of PPI and trust in PPI.

Indexed as

Health Information InteroperabilityPatient PreferenceHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.