Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41367620›Full record

ReviewOsteoarthritis and cartilage open2025

Methodology and predictive accuracy of the prospective preference assessment for randomized trial enrollment: A literature review.

Jon S Dhani, Faith Selzer, Jamie E Collins, Katharine B Fox, Paul Oh, Elena Losina, Jeffrey N Katz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Osteoarthritis and cartilage open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

7 authors.

Jon S DhaniThe Orthopaedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Faith SelzerThe Orthopaedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Jamie E CollinsThe Orthopaedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Katharine B FoxThe Orthopaedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Paul OhThe Orthopaedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Elena LosinaThe Orthopaedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Jeffrey N KatzThe Orthopaedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

Funding

Surgery vs. conservative care for meniscal tear after unsuccessful PT: an RCTR34AR082021 · NIAMS · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI KATZ, JEFFREY NEIL · 2023 to 2024
$475k
NIAMS NIH HHS R34 AR082021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The success of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) depends, in part, on the willingness to participate (WTP) of eligible subjects. Prospective preference assessments (PPA) offer insights into future RCT enrollment by evaluating eligible individuals' WTP in the RCT. We sought to summarize the methods and findings of published PPAs and to compare the WTP estimates of published PPAs to the actual enrollment rates from these trials. Design: We performed a systematic literature search using PubMed for studies that assessed eligible participants' WTP in a hypothetical trial. We abstracted sample size, proposed interventions, WTP response options, WTP percentage, presence of qualitative analyses, and assessment of trial feasibility from each publication. We defined WTP as a response of "probably" or "definitely" willing in the PPA; in sensitivity analyses, we included only "definitely" willing responses. We searched for registered and published RCTs connected to each PPA and extracted enrollment data from the corresponding trial publications where available. Results: We identified 40 PPAs. The median WTP across all PPAs was 54.9 ​% (range: 13 ​%-92.4 ​%), and 42.1 ​% (range: 7 ​%-90.2 ​%) when including only "definitely willing" responses. We found ten registered RCTs; five are completed and one is ongoing. Four PPAs with a RCT provided both "definitely willing" and "total willing" estimates. In three of these four RCTs, the actual enrollment fell between the "definitely willing" and "total willing" PPA estimates. Conclusion: "Definitely willing" and "total willing" findings in a PPA may provide useful upper and lower boundaries on participation for future trial planning.

Indexed as

FeasibilityPPAProspective preference assessmentRCTWillingness

Identifiers

PMID41367620
PMCPMC12685516

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.