Background: Systematic reviews are a commonly used research design in the medical field to synthesize study findings. At present-although several systematic reviews of patient preference studies are published-there is no clear guidance available for researchers to conduct this type of systematic review. The aim of our study was to learn the most current practice of conducting these systematic reviews by conducting a survey of the literature regarding reviews of quantitative patient preference studies.
Methods: Our survey included systematic reviews of studies that used a stated quantitative preference design to elicit patient preferences. We identified eligible reviews through a search of the PubMed database. Two investigators with knowledge of the design of patient preference studies independently screened the titles and abstracts, and where needed, screened the full-text of the reviews to determine eligibility. We developed and pilot-tested a form to extract data on the methods used in each systematic review.
Results: Our search and screening identified 29 eligible reviews. A large proportion of the reviews (19/29, 66%) were published in 2014 or after; among them, nine reviews were published in 2016. The median number of databases searched for preference studies was four (interquartile range = 2 to 7). We found that less than half of the reviews (13/29, 45%) clearly reported assessing risk of bias or the methodological quality of the included preference studies; not a single review was able to perform quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) of the data on patient preferences.
Conclusion: These results suggest that several methodological issues of performing systematic reviews of patient preferences are not yet fully addressed by research and that the methodology may require future development.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5725984 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0448-8 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Evaluating agreement between individual nutrition randomised controlled trials and cohort studies - a meta-epidemiological study.
BMC Med
January 2025
Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Background: In nutrition research, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies provide complementary evidence. This meta-epidemiological study aims to evaluate the agreement of effect estimates from individual nutrition RCTs and cohort studies investigating a highly similar research question and to investigate determinants of disagreement.
Methods: MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 2010 to September 2021.
HEMA-free versus HEMA-containing adhesive systems: a systematic review.
Syst Rev
January 2025
Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Postal Code, 35516, Egypt.
Background: Hydrophilic monomer 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA)-free adhesive systems are gaining increasing popularity nowadays. Although the addition of HEMA to dental adhesives improves dentin wettability and resin diffusion into demineralized collagen fibrils, HEMA's high hydrophilicity can lead to hydrolytic degradation of the adhesive interface. Thus, HEMA-free adhesive systems have been developed.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEfficacy and safety of molecular targeted therapies in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a network meta-analysis.
BMC Cancer
January 2025
School of Medicine, IMU University (Formerly Known as the International Medical University), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Background: Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is one of the most common head and neck cancers worldwide. The majority of the new cases were from Asia and are the leading cause of cancer in China. The main treatment is surgery and radiotherapy with chemotherapy for advanced cases.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFMachine learning algorithms for predicting PTSD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
January 2025
Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
This study aimed to compare and evaluate the prediction accuracy and risk of bias (ROB) of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) predictive models. We conducted a systematic review and random-effect meta-analysis summarizing predictive model development and validation studies using machine learning in diverse samples to predict PTSD. Model performances were pooled using the area under the curve (AUC) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEfficacy and safety of gut microbiome-targeted treatment in patients with depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BMC Psychiatry
January 2025
Department of Anesthesiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Zhejiang, China.
Background: The study aimed to comprehensively analyze and establish a framework for evaluating the efficacy of microbiome-targeted treatment (MTT) for depression.
Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure database for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MTT in treating depression until October 19, 2023. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MTT.
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!