SynthesisThe patient2024
Stated Preferences of At-Risk Populations for the Treatment of Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in The patient, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments on Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccinations.The patient · 2025Pooled it
- Patient, Physician, and Caregiver Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Optimizing Bone Health in Diabetes: Strategies for Fracture Risk Reduction in Public Healthcare.Current diabetes reports · 2025Review
- Sequential and Long-term Therapy for Osteoporosis.Current osteoporosis reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPoor adherence to anti-osteoporosis treatment is a well-recognized problem, partly due to misalignment with patient preferences. In recent years, several quantitative preference studies have been conducted. This study aimed to systematically review stated preference research to provide a comprehensive overview of patient preferences in osteoporosis, in particular on conditional relative attribute importance and preference heterogeneity.
methodsThis systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase up to February 29th, 2024. It includes all English-language, peer-reviewed, stated preference articles related to osteoporosis management and treatment in patients with or at risk of osteoporosis. Conditional relative importance of attributes as well as heterogeneity was assessed, and attributes classified into outcome, process, and cost attributes. Quality assessment was performed using a combined checklist of Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance (PREFS) and International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) items.
resultsFourteen studies including 4714 participants were evaluated. Attributes were mostly classified as process related (50%) and outcome related (40%), both of which significantly influence patient preferences. In pairwise attribute comparison, efficacy was dominant over cost, administration, and side-effects. Preference heterogeneity was observed in the majority of studies (86%). Quality assessment indicated an overall improvement in study quality over time, with recent studies adhering more closely to established methodological standards.
conclusionsThe findings highlight the importance of considering patient preferences in the management of osteoporosis, underscoring the need for a patient-centered approach. The readiness of patients to engage in trade-offs between attributes suggests that healthcare providers should ensure treatments are aligned with individual patient preferences to improve adherence and optimize outcomes.
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.