ArticleGlobal health research and policy2026
Exploring methodology for investigating Chinese coronary artery disease patient values and preferences: A methodological study protocol.
Article in Global health research and policy, 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.
- Development of a CHD risk prediction model using novel lipid markers based on lipidomics and VAP technology.Frontiers in medicine · 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a leading cause of global mortality and disability. CAD patients face tradeoffs between antithrombotic therapy benefits and bleeding risks, underscoring the need to incorporate patient values and preferences into clinical guidelines. Establishing minimal important differences (MIDs) for patient-important outcomes supports clinical guideline development by determining the smallest change in outcomes that patients consider important. However, directly conducting patient surveys to establish MIDs presents several methodological challenges. Methods: We established a multidisciplinary working group to guide the MID investigation. Using a three-phase process, we identified key outcomes through literature review and discussion. We will develop draft health outcome descriptions by synthesizing evidence from clinical guidelines and qualitative studies, supplemented with patient interviews, and refine the drafts through iterative cognitive interviews. We then designed outcome-specific draft MID questionnaires and will employ cognitive interviews to assess clarity and comprehensibility. Discussion: This study will develop standard materials for surveying patient values and determining MIDs in Chinese CAD patients. The resulting methodology will support future investigations into patient-important outcomes and provide critical evidence for clinical guideline development.
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.