SynthesisCanadian liver journal2025
Discrete Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analyses in Health Screening Programs for Type 2 Diabetes and Liver Disease: A Scoping Review.
Synthesis in Canadian liver journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We aimed to summarize the evidence on the use of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) and conjoint analyses to quantify stakeholders' preferences for screening programs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) and liver diseases, with a specific focus on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). Methods: For this scoping review, five databases (MEDLINE [PubMed], PubMed Central, EMBASE [Ovid], Europe PMC, Google Scholar) were searched with the assistance of a librarian, and deduplicated records were screened by two independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria: using DCE/CA, addressing screening programs for T2D and liver disease, published in English, French, or Spanish after January 1990. Results: Among 2,282 studies, 9 (7 from high- and 2 from low-income countries) elicited preferences for screening for liver disease (n = 1), hepatitis C (n = 1), hepatitis B (n = 1), hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 2), noncommunicable diseases (n = 2), diabetic retinopathy (n = 1), and cardiovascular diseases (n = 1). No studies addressed MASLD screening in T2D. Stakeholders included patients (n = 3), health care providers (n = 1), patients plus health care providers (n = 1), and the general population (n = 3). Studies used 18 structure, 6 process, and 4 outcome attributes. Screening sensitivity, setting, duration, provider, and cost were the most important structure attributes in participant choices. Physician support for treatment was the preferred process attribute. Outcome attributes were the least used, but of major importance (screening adherence followed by treatment) when considered. Conclusions: With no study focusing on MASLD screening in T2D, our scoping review highlights the need to develop a DCE addressing this topic to better design a patient-centred continuum of care.
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.