ArticlePloS one2025
Analysis of patients preferences in type 2 diabetes mellitus second-line drug treatment: A discrete choice experiment.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors influencing patient preferences for obesity pharmacotherapy: The triangulation of semi-structured interviews, photovoice study and focus group discussions.Obesity pillars · 2026Article
- How do patients with primary hypertension assess different endpoints of their treatment? a survey using analytic hierarchy process.Journal of human hypertension · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) represents a major public health challenge with significant effects on morbidity and mortality. Clinical guidelines provide treatment recommendations, but there is limited understanding of patients' preferences. This study aimed to elicit preferences for second-line drug treatments for T2D.
methodA Discrete Choice Experiment with a partial-profile design was conducted from August to November 2023, involving German patients with experience in either monotherapy or second-line drug treatment. Participants completed 12 choice tasks, each presenting three alternatives described by attributes: risk of myocardial infarction, risk of stroke, risk of nerve damage, risk of nausea, risk of severe hypoglycemia, weight change, type and frequency of intake, and schedule of intake. Statistical analyses employed the Conditional Logit and Random Parameter Logit models to assess main effects and heterogeneity.
resultsThe study encompassed 583 adult individuals with T2D, evenly divided between the two populations. Key factors influencing choice decisions included risk of nausea, risk of nerve damage, and weight change, with weekly type and frequency of intake risk of myocardial infarction followed. Less impactful but still relevant were risks of stroke, and severe hypoglycemia, while the intake schedule was least significant. Analysis of BMI categories revealed distinct preferences, particularly in weight change, with significant heterogeneity observed among respondents.
conclusionThis study highlights the importance of incorporating patient preferences into clinical decision-making. By quantifying preferences for second-line drug treatments, the study underscores the need for low-risk options that also consider weight change and intake conditions, aligning with the German National Health Care Guideline for T2D objectives for shared decision-making and treatment adherence. Recognizing individual sensitivities to risks and benefits is crucial for tailoring effective T2D treatment strategies. The study bridges clinical findings with patient perspectives, offering valuable insights into clinical practice, consideration for HTA processes, and design of clinical studies.
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.