ReviewThe patient2026
Probabilistic Attribute Presentation in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Scoping Review of Current Practice.
Review in The patient, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- You've Been Framed: The Impact of Risk and Time Framings on Contraceptive Preferences in a Discrete Choice Experiment.Health economics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThere is growing interest in how probability information is framed and presented in health-related discrete choice experiments (DCEs), given evidence that presentation formats can influence respondents' choices. Recent regulatory and methodological initiatives call for clear and standardized probability presentation but the extent to which these practices have been adopted in DCEs is unclear. This scoping review sought to characterize changes in DCE practices over time compared with prior similar review studies, and to examine the extent to which current practices align with the latest evidence-based guidance.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review of 98 health-related DCE studies published between October 2022 and August 2024 that included numeric probabilistic attributes, extracting data on probability framing, use of visual aids, and alignment with best-practice guidance. Articles were identified from Medline, Embase, Web of Science, EconLit, and PsychINFO.
resultsA total of 583 attributes were presented across the 98 included studies, of which 249 were probabilistic attributes. Probabilistic risk attributes were more common than benefit attributes (present in 85% versus 65% of studies). All risk attributes were framed in absolute terms, and 16% of benefit attributes were framed in relative terms, indicating some deviation from best practices. Graphical aids were frequently used to convey probabilities, more often for risk attributes (59% of studies) versus benefit attributes (47%). Icon arrays were the predominant visual aid (86% of risk visuals, 72% of benefit visuals), but design choices varied widely. More than half of these icon arrays depicted only male figures, and color schemes were inconsistent.
conclusionsCompared with a decade ago, recent studies increasingly incorporated recommended practices (e.g., pretesting and visual aids). Nevertheless, variability persists in probability framing (especially for benefits) and visual design choices, highlighting the need for further methodological guidance to standardize probabilistic attribute presentation in DCEs.
Identifiers
42360667What 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.