ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2026
Patient-centered valuation of minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bridging perception and reality: understanding Chinese women's behavioral intentions toward robot-assisted gynecologic surgery.Frontiers in public health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAlthough minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for cervical cancer is considered inferior to open surgery, many patients still prefer MIS, and their preferences regarding surgical options remain underexplored. Understanding how patients value surgical procedures is essential for informed, patient-centered decision-making.
methodsA discrete choice experiment was conducted with 131 gynecologic cancer patients via face-to-face surveys from January 2023 to July 2023. The 6 attributes of MIS evaluated were hospital stay length, time to return to normal activities, serious surgical complications, cosmetic outcomes, 3-year overall survival (OS), and cost.
resultsExcept for hospital stay length, the remaining 5 attributes-3-year OS (odds ratio [OR]=0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.22-0.43; p<0.001), out-of-pocket costs (OR=0.60; 95% CI=0.47-0.77; p<0.001), serious surgical complications (OR=0.67; 95% CI=0.57-0.79; p<0.001), cosmetic outcomes (OR=0.68; 95% CI=0.59-0.79; p<0.001), and time to return to normal activities (OR=0.71; 95% CI=0.61-0.82; p<0.001)-significantly influenced decision-making. The likelihood of choosing a procedure increased by 3.3-fold with a 5% improvement in OS, followed by a 1.4-fold increase with fewer serious complications, better cosmetic outcomes, or a faster return to normal activities. Patients under 50 valued survival, lower costs, cosmetic outcomes, and quicker recovery more than older women, who placed greater emphasis on minimizing serious complications.
conclusionPatients prioritized survival outcomes, while other non-oncologic MIS characteristics were also important. Incorporating patients' preferences and understanding age-related changes is essential for effective shared decision-making in clinical practice.
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.