ReviewOTO open
Stated Preference Research in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review.
Review in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Stated preference research methods, including discrete choice experiments (DCEs), conjoint analysis (CA), best-worst scaling (BWS), and willingness-to-pay/contingent valuation (WTP/CV) studies, are excellent tools for understanding patient preferences in healthcare. Their application in otolaryngology has yet to be described. This work encompasses a scoping review assessing the field of stated preference research in otolaryngology, to identify gaps in the current literature and identify areas of future applications of such methodologies. Data Sources: Embase, Medline, and Web of Science. Review Methods: A search of three databases for all relevant publications through 2023 was performed using relevant search terms. Eligibility criteria for included studies included the use of one of four methodologies (DCE, CA, BWS, and WTA/CV). After screening and full-text review by two authors, data were extracted, including relevant methodologic parameters including type of study, survey development characteristics, sample size, and outcome. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Of 3064 search results, 57 were included for full data extraction from inception to 2023, across 14 countries, with an increasing number of studies in recent years. WTP/CV was the most common method (58%), followed by DCE (30%), CA (23%), and BWS studies (5%). Otology was the most frequently studied subspeciality (36.8%). Treatment options were more commonly studied than diagnostics or health state preferences. Many studies did not specify survey development methods (38.6%). Conclusion: Stated preference research in otolaryngology is relatively sparse, and there is significant methodological inconsistency in the development and implementation of these methods. This review provides research priorities for stated preference research in otolaryngology in an era of patient-centered care. Level of Evidence: Level 4.
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.