ArticleBMJ open2018
Symptoms and feelings valued by patients after a percutaneous coronary intervention: a discrete-choice experiment to inform development of a new patient-reported outcome.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- The effect of mobile application-based education on illness perception in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Response rates in clinical quality registries and databases that collect patient reported outcome measures: a scoping review.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2023Article
- Development of a percutaneous coronary intervention patient level composite measure for a clinical quality registry.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Article
- Designing a Nurse-Led eHealth Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: Insights From Participant Experiences and Qualitative Feedback.Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo inform the development of a patient-reported outcome measure, the aim of this study was to identify which symptoms and feelings following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are most important to patients.
designDiscrete-choice experiment consisting of two hypothetical scenarios of 10 symptoms and feelings (pain or discomfort; shortness of breath; concern/worry about heart problems; tiredness; confidence to do usual activities; ability to do usual activities; happiness; sleep disturbance; dizziness or light-headedness and bruising) experienced after PCI, described by three levels (never, some of the time, most of the time). Preference weights were estimated using a conditional logit model.
settingFour Australian public hospitals that contribute to the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry (VCOR) and a private insurer's claim database.
participants138 people aged >18 years who had undergone a PCI in the previous 6 months.
main outcome measuresPatient preferences via trade-offs between 10 feelings and symptoms.
resultsOf the 138 individuals recruited, 129 (93%) completed all 16 choice sets. Conditional logit parameter estimates were mostly monotonic (eg, moving to worse levels for each individual symptom and feeling made the option less attractive). When comparing the magnitude of the coefficients (based on the coefficient of the worst level relative to best level in each item), feeling unhappy was the symptom or feeling that most influenced perception of a least-preferred PCI outcome (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.51, p<0.0001) and the least influential was bruising (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.99, p=0.04).
conclusionThis study provides new insights into how patients value symptoms and feelings they experience following a PCI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.