Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30510407›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2018

Patients' preferences in periodontal disease treatment elicited alongside an IQWiG benefit assessment: a feasibility study.

Vera Vennedey, Sonja Hm Derman, Mickaël Hiligsmann, Daniele Civello, Anja Schwalm, Astrid Seidl, Fülöp Scheibler, Stephanie Stock, Michael J Noack, Marion Danner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Vera VennedeyInstitute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital Cologne (AöR), Cologne, Germany, vera.vennedey@uk-koeln.de.
Sonja Hm DermanDepartment of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital Cologne (AöR), Cologne, Germany.
Mickaël HiligsmannDepartment of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Daniele CivelloInstitute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital Cologne (AöR), Cologne, Germany, vera.vennedey@uk-koeln.de.
Anja SchwalmDepartment of Health Care and Health Economics, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany.
Astrid SeidlDepartment of Health Care and Health Economics, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany.
Fülöp ScheiblerDepartment of Paediatrics, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Kiel, Germany.
Stephanie StockInstitute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital Cologne (AöR), Cologne, Germany, vera.vennedey@uk-koeln.de.
Michael J NoackDepartment of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital Cologne (AöR), Cologne, Germany.
Marion DannerInstitute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital Cologne (AöR), Cologne, Germany, vera.vennedey@uk-koeln.de.
University Hospital Cologne · DEInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care · DEUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEMaastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) previously tested two preference elicitation methods in pilot projects and regarded them as generally feasible for prioritizing outcome-specific results of benefit assessment. The present study aimed to investigate the feasibility of completing a discrete choice experiment (DCE) within 3 months and to determine the relative importance of attributes of periodontal disease and its treatment. PATIENTS AND

methodsThis preference elicitation was conducted alongside the IQWiG benefit assessment of systematic treatments of periodontal diseases. Attributes were defined based on the benefit assessment, literature review, and patients' and periodontologists' interviews. The DCE survey was completed by patients with a history of periodontal disease. Preferences were elicited for the attributes "tooth loss within next 10 years", "own costs for treatment, follow-up visits, re-treatment", "complaints and symptoms", and "frequency of follow-up visits". Patients completed a self-administered questionnaire including 12 choice tasks. Data were analyzed using a random parameters logit model. The relative attribute importance was calculated based on level ranges.

resultsWithin 3 months, survey development, data collection among 267 patients, data analysis, and provision of a study report could be completed. The analysis showed that tooth loss (score 0.73) was the most important attribute in patients' decisions, followed by complaints and symptoms (0.22), frequency of follow-up visits (0.02), and costs (0.03) (relative importance scores summing up to 1).

conclusionA preference analysis performing a DCE can be generally feasible within 3 months; however, a good research infrastructure and access to patients is required. Outcomes used in benefit assessments might need to be adapted to be used in preference analyses.

Indexed as

conjoint analysisdecision makingdiscrete choice experimenthealth technology assessmentperiodontal diseasereimbursement

Identifiers

PMID30510407
PMCPMC6248230
OpenAlexW2900465556

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.