Daksh Choudhary1, Megan Thomas2, Kevin Pacheco-Barrios3,4, Yuan Zhang5, Pablo Alonso-Coello6, Holger Schünemann5, Glen Hazlewood7,8. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 2. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 3. Neuromodulation Center and Center for Clinical Research Learning, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Vicerrectorado de Investigación, Unidad de Investigación para la Generación y Sintesis de Evidencias en Salud, Lima, Peru. 5. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 6. Instituto de Investigación Biomédica (IIB Sant Pau), Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano, Barcelona, Spain. 7. Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. gshazlew@ucalgary.ca. 8. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. gshazlew@ucalgary.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews of discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) are being increasingly conducted. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and describe the methodologies that have been used to summarize results across DCEs. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to March 18, 2021, to identify English-language systematic reviews of patient preferences that included at least two DCEs and extracted data on attribute importance. The methods used to summarize results across DCEs were classified into narrative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative (meta-analytic) approaches and compared. Approaches to characterize the extent of preference heterogeneity were also described. RESULTS: From 7362 unique records, we identified 54 eligible reviews from 2010 to Mar 2021, across a broad range of health conditions. Most (83%) used a narrative approach to summarize findings of DCEs, often citing differences in studies as the reason for not formally pooling findings. Semi-quantitative approaches included summarizing the frequency of the most important attributes, the frequency of attribute statistical significance, or tabulated comparisons of attribute importance for each pair of attributes. One review conducted a meta-analysis using the maximum acceptable risk. While reviews often commented on the heterogeneity of patient preferences, few (6%) addressed this systematically across studies. CONCLUSION: While not commonly used, several semi-quantitative and one quantitative approach for synthesizing results of DCEs were identified, which may be useful for generating summary estimates across DCEs when appropriate. Further work is needed to assess the validity and usefulness of these approaches.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews of discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) are being increasingly conducted. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and describe the methodologies that have been used to summarize results across DCEs. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to March 18, 2021, to identify English-language systematic reviews of patient preferences that included at least two DCEs and extracted data on attribute importance. The methods used to summarize results across DCEs were classified into narrative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative (meta-analytic) approaches and compared. Approaches to characterize the extent of preference heterogeneity were also described. RESULTS: From 7362 unique records, we identified 54 eligible reviews from 2010 to Mar 2021, across a broad range of health conditions. Most (83%) used a narrative approach to summarize findings of DCEs, often citing differences in studies as the reason for not formally pooling findings. Semi-quantitative approaches included summarizing the frequency of the most important attributes, the frequency of attribute statistical significance, or tabulated comparisons of attribute importance for each pair of attributes. One review conducted a meta-analysis using the maximum acceptable risk. While reviews often commented on the heterogeneity of patient preferences, few (6%) addressed this systematically across studies. CONCLUSION: While not commonly used, several semi-quantitative and one quantitative approach for synthesizing results of DCEs were identified, which may be useful for generating summary estimates across DCEs when appropriate. Further work is needed to assess the validity and usefulness of these approaches.
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-26
Authors: John F P Bridges; A Brett Hauber; Deborah Marshall; Andrew Lloyd; Lisa A Prosser; Dean A Regier; F Reed Johnson; Josephine Mauskopf Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Martin Ho; Anindita Saha; K Kimberly McCleary; Bennett Levitan; Stephanie Christopher; Kristen Zandlo; R Scott Braithwaite; A Brett Hauber Journal: Value Health Date: 2016 Sep - Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Anna Selva; Ivan Solà; Yuan Zhang; Hector Pardo-Hernandez; R Brian Haynes; Laura Martínez García; Tamara Navarro; Holger Schünemann; Pablo Alonso-Coello Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2017-08-30 Impact factor: 3.186