ArticleBMJ open2026
Patient preferences for treatment attributes in osteoarthritis: protocol for a systematic review of stated preference studies.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- From buccal mucosa to appendix: a bibliometric and evidence-maturity analysis of autologous tissue-based robot-assisted ureteral reconstruction.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOsteoarthritis (OA) is a common chronic condition requiring long-term management, for which shared decision-making is increasingly recognised as an important component of care. Stated preference (SP) methods, including discrete choice experiments (DCE), conjoint analysis (CA) and best-worst scaling (BWS), are increasingly used to quantify patient preferences for treatment attributes and to inform clinical and policy decisions. However, evidence from SP studies in OA has not been comprehensively synthesised. This protocol describes a systematic review aiming to identify, appraise and synthesise evidence on the relative importance of treatment attributes for patients with OA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive search will be conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Dimensions and OpenAlex from database inception to January 2026. Eligible studies will include quantitative SP studies-encompassing DCE, CA and BWS-evaluating patient preferences for pharmacological, non-pharmacological or surgical treatments in OA. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, extract data using a standardised form and assess methodological quality using the Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings and Significance (PREFS) checklist, the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Good Research Practices for CA and DCE and the DIscrete choice experiment REporting ChecklisT (DIRECT) checklist for reporting quality. A structured narrative synthesis will summarise and categorise key treatment attributes (eg, efficacy, safety, cost and mode of administration). Where studies are sufficiently comparable in attributes and outcome reporting, a random-effects meta-analysis may be conducted to pool preference estimates, such as relative importance or willingness-to-pay values. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required, as this review will use published data only. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251181273.
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.