Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: A Scoping Review

Daksh Choudhary, Megan Thomas, Kevin Pacheco-Barrios, Yuan Zhang, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Holger Schünemann and Glen Hazlewood ()
Additional contact information
Daksh Choudhary: University of Calgary
Megan Thomas: University of Calgary
Kevin Pacheco-Barrios: Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital
Yuan Zhang: McMaster University
Pablo Alonso-Coello: Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano
Holger Schünemann: McMaster University
Glen Hazlewood: University of Calgary

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2022, vol. 15, issue 6, No 4, 629-639

Abstract: 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.

Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-022-00587-7 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-022-00587-7

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40271

DOI: 10.1007/s40271-022-00587-7

Access Statistics for this article

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research is currently edited by Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research from Springer, International Academy of Health Preference Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().