RESUMO
BACKGROUND: As new diagnostic imaging technologies are adopted, decisions surrounding diagnostic imaging become increasingly complex. As such, understanding patient preferences in imaging decision making is imperative. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to review quantitative patient preference studies in imaging-related decision making, including characteristics of the literature and the quality of the evidence. METHODS: The Pubmed, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL databases were searched to identify studies involving diagnostic imaging and quantitative patient preference measures from January 2000 to June 2022. Study characteristics that were extracted included the preference elicitation method, disease focus, and sample size. We employed the PREFS (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance) checklist as our quality assessment tool. RESULTS: A total of 54 articles were included. The following methods were used to elicit preferences: conjoint analysis/discrete choice experiment methods (n = 27), contingent valuation (n = 16), time trade-off (n = 4), best-worst scaling (n = 3), multicriteria decision analysis (n = 3), and a standard gamble approach (n = 1). Half of the studies were published after 2016 (52%, 28/54). The most common scenario (n = 39) for eliciting patient preferences was cancer screening. Computed tomography, the most frequently studied imaging modality, was included in 20 studies, and sample sizes ranged from 30 to 3469 participants (mean 552). The mean PREFS score was 3.5 (standard deviation 0.8) for the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights that a variety of quantitative preference methods are being used, as diagnostic imaging technologies continue to evolve. While the number of preference studies in diagnostic imaging has increased with time, most examine preventative care/screening, leaving a gap in knowledge regarding imaging for disease characterization and management.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Dorsal column spinal cord stimulation is used for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain of the axial spine and extremities. Recently, high-dose (HD) thoracic dorsal column stimulation for paresthesias has been successful. This study evaluates the utility of HD stimulation in the cervical spine for managing upper neck and upper extremity pain and paresthesias. METHODS: Three patients suffering from cervical and upper extremity chronic pain were assessed. Each underwent a two-stage process that included a trial period, followed by permanent stimulator implantation. Therapy included the latest HD stimulation settings including a pulse width of 90 µs, a frequency setting of 1000 Hz, and an amplitude range of 1.5 amps-2.0 amps. Pain relief was measured utilizing relative percent pain improvement as self-reported by each patient before and after surgery. RESULTS: After permanent implantation, (range 15-21 months), all three patients continued to experience persistent pain and paresthesia relief (70%-90%). CONCLUSIONS: In three patients, HD cervical spinal cord stimulation successfully controlled upper extremity chronic pain/paresthesias.