Observational studyBMJ open2025
Patient and physician preferences for cancer panel testing in Japan: a best-worst scaling study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04607889 (Measurement of Patient Views on the Attributes of Cancer Genomic Medicine in Japan), which is not on this 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.
Measurement of Patient Views on the Attributes of Cancer Genomic Medicine in Japan (Patient View Study)
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the relative importance of the benefits and burdens of comprehensive genomic profiling testing from the perspectives of patients and physicians in Japan.
designCross-sectional preference elicitation via a mixed method centred on best-worst scaling (BWS) case 2 (profile case), including qualitative stages to define the attributes and pilot the survey.
settingOnline surveys for patients who are members of patient advocacy groups and for physicians registered with a survey panel.
participantsA preference study was conducted among 229 patients with lung or rare cancers and 329 physicians treating lung or rare cancers. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: BWS scores indicating patient and physician preferences for comprehensive genomic profiling tests.
resultsThe best benefit of panel testing for the patients was that all samples would yield results (coefficient 5.36). They also valued that the cost of the test paid directly by the patient is ¥0 (coefficient 5.28) and that a blood sample is used (coefficient 4.87). They perceived the cost of ¥800 000, duration of the testing process (3 months) and the lack of a detailed explanation of the test as the primary disadvantages (coefficients -0.45, reference level, 0.09, respectively). The physicians highlighted the following essential attributes for panel testing: all samples will yield results, a blood sample is used and a sample collected in the past is used (coefficients 4.66, 4.17, 4.10, respectively). In their view, the most negative attribute level was that the cost of the test is ¥800 000, followed by the duration of the testing process (3 months) and the possibility that 4 in 10 tests will not yield results due to a problem with the sample (coefficients -0.32, reference level, 0.41, respectively).
conclusionsThe results of this study provide insights that will help patients and physicians improve the panel testing process. The results will also guide the further development of panel testing technologies and the optimisation of regulatory and healthcare policies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04607889.
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.