Forty-two systematic reviews generated 23 items for assessing the risk of bias in values and preferences' studies

Yepes-Núñez, Juan José; Zhang, Yuan; Xie, Feng; Alonso‐Coello, Pablo; Selva, Anna; Guyatt, Gordon

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.019

Cited by 20 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, great imbalance in the preference rates of the two treatments should be avoided, and investigators should strive to include treatments with relative preference rates reasonably close to 50:50; however, the loss of precision is not huge, as long as the relative preference rates remain between about 30% and 70%. In this context, gathering pilot data on treatment preference rates (and assessing the risk of bias) may be helpful to gauge the desirability and feasibility of the two‐stage design. Investigators may also consider ongoing monitoring of the relative preference rate, and our present results on optimisation could potentially be used to profitably adapt the rate of randomising patients into the choice arm as a trial proceeds.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimising the two‐stage randomised trial design when some participants are indifferent in their treatment preferences

Walter

Turner

Macaskill

2019

Statistics in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Funding information Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOutcomes in a clinical trial can be affected by any underlying preferences that its participants have for the treatments under comparison and by whether they actually receive their preferred treatment. These effects cannot be evaluated in standard trial designs but are estimable in the alternative two-stage randomised trial design, in which some patients can choose their treatment, while the rest are randomly assigned.We have previously shown that, when all two-stage trial participants have a preferred treatment, the preference effects can be evaluated, in addition to the usual direct effect of treatment. We also determined criteria by which to optimise how many participants should be given a choice of treatment vs being randomised. More recently, we extended our methodology to allow for participants who are unable or unwilling to express a treatment preference if they are assigned to the choice group.In this paper, we show how to optimise the two-stage design when some participants are undecided about their treatment. We demonstrate that the undecided group should be regarded as distinct in the analysis, to obtain valid estimates of the preference effects. We derive the optimal proportion of participants who should be offered a choice of treatment, which in many cases will be close to 50%. More generally, the optima depend on the preference rates for treatments and the proportion of undecided participants, and the parameters of primary interest. We discuss some advantages and disadvantages of the two-stage trial design in this situation and describe a practical example.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimising the two‐stage randomised trial design when some participants are indifferent in their treatment preferences

Walter

Turner

Macaskill

2019

Statistics in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some experts are wary of applying population preferences in individual encounters for cancer screening because extrapolating might be inaccurate or ignore individual's autonomy in decision‐making . Many researchers are currently investigating robust methods to elicit and synthesize preferences for use in population‐level recommendations . “Cervical cancer screening— it's your choice” was designed to inform future person‐centred cervical cancer screening guidelines and met the quality criteria of an individual‐level decision tool.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10,55,56 Many researchers are currently investigating robust methods to elicit and synthesize preferences for use in population-level recommendations. 14,15,57,58 "Cervical cancer screening-it's your choice" was designed to inform future person-centred cervical cancer screening guidelines and met the quality criteria of an individual-level decision tool. The variation in women's values and how they influence their cervical screening preferences will be an important factor for guideline developers to consider when developing person-centred recommendations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and field testing of a tool to elicit women's preferences among cervical cancer screening modalities

Wood

Taljaard

El‐Khatib

et al. 2019

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The objective of the present study is to describe the development and field testing of a preference‐elicitation tool for cervical cancer screening, meeting International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) quality criteria. Methods We developed a tool designed to elicit women's preferences among cervical cancer screening modalities. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework and IPDAS systematic development process guided the design, and we followed IPDAS criteria for conducting a field test in a real‐world setting. Using social media recruitment strategies, we identified a convenience sample of Ontario women who were currently eligible for cervical screening to test the tool. We evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, balance of information, and ability to elicit women's informed, values‐based preferences using an online survey embedded in the tool. Results Twenty‐five women participated in the field test. Participants were aged 20 to 63 years , and identified as predominantly white (88%), living in Northern Ontario (68%), and most had university education (75%). Most participants (72%) considered the length of the website as “just right,” and 100% indicated that they would find the tool useful for decision‐making. Over two‐thirds (68%) of participants perceived the information in the tool as “balanced.” Almost all (92%) participants scored at least 4 out of 7 on the knowledge quiz, and most participants (84%) selected their preference in an informed, values‐based way. Conclusion The results from our field test of this tool provide preliminary evidence of the tool's feasibility, acceptability, balance, and ability to elicit women's informed, values‐based preferences among available cervical screening modalities. Further research should elicit the distribution of preferences of cervical screening modalities in other regions, using a sample who represents the screening population and a rigorous study design. It will be important for researchers and screening programmes to evaluate the tool's ability to elicit women's informed, values‐based preferences compared with educational materials.

show abstract

“…They assessed whether the preference study had properly addressed purposes, respondents, explanation, findings, and significance. Others such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration also listed several quality standards for patient preference studies in one of their guides [2] and researchers from McMaster University have generated 23 items for assessing the risk of bias in preference studies [8]. Implementing the methodological quality assessment tools for patient preference studies in actual practice would be challenging since there are so many different types of study designs available.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Yepes-Nuñez et al [8] have done a systematic survey of patient preference reviews to identify items that previous reviewers have used in making risk of bias assessment of primary studies addressing preferences. They then grouped these items into seven domains for assessing the risk of bias, such as the instrument health state presentation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods to perform systematic reviews of patient preferences: a literature survey

Enkh-Amgalan

Zorigt

2017

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSystematic reviews are a commonly used research design in the medical field to synthesize study findings. At present—although several systematic reviews of patient preference studies are published—there is no clear guidance available for researchers to conduct this type of systematic review. The aim of our study was to learn the most current practice of conducting these systematic reviews by conducting a survey of the literature regarding reviews of quantitative patient preference studies.MethodsOur survey included systematic reviews of studies that used a stated quantitative preference design to elicit patient preferences. We identified eligible reviews through a search of the PubMed database. Two investigators with knowledge of the design of patient preference studies independently screened the titles and abstracts, and where needed, screened the full-text of the reviews to determine eligibility. We developed and pilot-tested a form to extract data on the methods used in each systematic review.ResultsOur search and screening identified 29 eligible reviews. A large proportion of the reviews (19/29, 66%) were published in 2014 or after; among them, nine reviews were published in 2016. The median number of databases searched for preference studies was four (interquartile range = 2 to 7). We found that less than half of the reviews (13/29, 45%) clearly reported assessing risk of bias or the methodological quality of the included preference studies; not a single review was able to perform quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) of the data on patient preferences.ConclusionThese results suggest that several methodological issues of performing systematic reviews of patient preferences are not yet fully addressed by research and that the methodology may require future development.

show abstract

Forty-two systematic reviews generated 23 items for assessing the risk of bias in values and preferences' studies

Cited by 20 publications

References 45 publications

Optimising the two‐stage randomised trial design when some participants are indifferent in their treatment preferences

Optimising the two‐stage randomised trial design when some participants are indifferent in their treatment preferences

Development and field testing of a tool to elicit women's preferences among cervical cancer screening modalities

Methods to perform systematic reviews of patient preferences: a literature survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About