SynthesisBMC cancer2025
Summary of present design of discrete choice experiments for patient preferences in lung cancer based on the ISPOR ESTIMATE checklist.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide and is associated with a high mortality rate. Addressing unmet medical needs in lung cancer treatments from the perspective of patient preferences has become an important research focus. Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) are commonly used to assess patient preferences, therefore it is essential to interpret their analysis methods and results appropriately. This scoping review was intended to examine DCE studies on patient preferences for lung cancer treatments published after the release of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) ESTIMATE checklist in 2016, and to identify challenges in applying the checklist.
methodsLiteratures meeting the eligibility criteria for DCE studies on patient preferences for lung cancer treatments were identified through PubMed and Cochrane Library searches and reviewed independently by two reviewers according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Scoping Review extension. All literatures were reviewed and assessed using the ISPOR ESTIMATE checklist.
resultsTwelve DCE studies published between January 2017 and June 2022 were identified. All studies used efficacy and side effects as attributes while less than half studies used cost. Our assessment revealed that all studies completed the checklists of Interpretation, Method, and Assumptions domains. However, the checklists in Evaluation, Stochastic, and Trade-offs domains were not completed in 83.3%, 41.7%, and 33.3% of the 12 studies, respectively. This suggests that further consideration is needed to ensure the appropriateness of the statistical analysis and interpretation of the results of the DCE studies for lung cancer treatments.
conclusionsOur scoping review using the ISPOR ESTIMATE checklists found that the consideration points remained the focus of Evaluation, Stochastic, and Trade-offs in DCE studies on patient preferences for lung cancer treatments.
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.