Ontology type: schema:ScholarlyArticle
2021-12-20
AUTHORSMegan Thomas, Deborah A. Marshall, Daksh Choudhary, Susan J. Bartlett, Adalberto Loyola Sanchez, Glen S. Hazlewood
ABSTRACTBackground and ObjectivePatients can express preferences for different treatment options in a healthcare context, and these can be measured with quantitative preference elicitation methods.ObjectiveOur objective was to conduct a scoping review to determine how preference elicitation methods have been used in the design of clinical trials.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review to identify primary research studies, involving any health condition, that used quantitative preference elicitation methods, including direct utility-based approaches, and stated preference studies, to value health trade-offs in the context of clinical trial design. Studies were identified by screening existing systematic and scoping reviews and with a primary literature search in MEDLINE from 2010 to the present. We extracted study characteristics and the application of preference elicitation methods to clinical trial design according to the SPIRIT checklist from primary studies and summarized the findings descriptively.ResultsWe identified 18 eligible studies. The included studies applied patient preferences to five areas of clinical trial design: intervention selection (n = 1), designing N-of-1 trials (n = 1), outcome selection and weighting composite and ordinal outcomes (n = 12), sample size calculations (n = 2), and recruitment (n = 2). Using preference elicitation methods led to different decisions being made, such as using preference-weighted composite outcomes instead of equally weighted composite outcomes.ConclusionPreference elicitation methods are infrequently used to design clinical trials but may lead to changes throughout the trial that could affect the evidence generated. Future work should consider measurement challenges and explore stakeholder perceptions. More... »
PAGES1-12
http://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w
DIMENSIONShttps://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1144017738
PUBMEDhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34927216
JSON-LD is the canonical representation for SciGraph data.
TIP: You can open this SciGraph record using an external JSON-LD service: JSON-LD Playground Google SDTT
[
{
"@context": "https://springernature.github.io/scigraph/jsonld/sgcontext.json",
"about": [
{
"id": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/11",
"inDefinedTermSet": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/",
"name": "Medical and Health Sciences",
"type": "DefinedTerm"
},
{
"id": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/1117",
"inDefinedTermSet": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/",
"name": "Public Health and Health Services",
"type": "DefinedTerm"
}
],
"author": [
{
"affiliation": {
"alternateName": "Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, T2N 4N1, Calgary, AB, Canada",
"id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.22072.35",
"name": [
"Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, T2N 4N1, Calgary, AB, Canada"
],
"type": "Organization"
},
"familyName": "Thomas",
"givenName": "Megan",
"id": "sg:person.010507042205.59",
"sameAs": [
"https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.010507042205.59"
],
"type": "Person"
},
{
"affiliation": {
"alternateName": "Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada",
"id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.22072.35",
"name": [
"Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, T2N 4N1, Calgary, AB, Canada",
"Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada"
],
"type": "Organization"
},
"familyName": "Marshall",
"givenName": "Deborah A.",
"id": "sg:person.01127752574.73",
"sameAs": [
"https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.01127752574.73"
],
"type": "Person"
},
{
"affiliation": {
"alternateName": "Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada",
"id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.22072.35",
"name": [
"Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada"
],
"type": "Organization"
},
"familyName": "Choudhary",
"givenName": "Daksh",
"id": "sg:person.012476351517.01",
"sameAs": [
"https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.012476351517.01"
],
"type": "Person"
},
{
"affiliation": {
"alternateName": "Centre for Outcomes Research & Evaluation, Research Institute McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada",
"id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.63984.30",
"name": [
"Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada",
"Centre for Outcomes Research & Evaluation, Research Institute McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada"
],
"type": "Organization"
},
"familyName": "Bartlett",
"givenName": "Susan J.",
"id": "sg:person.01013606445.46",
"sameAs": [
"https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.01013606445.46"
],
"type": "Person"
},
{
"affiliation": {
"alternateName": "Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada",
"id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.17089.37",
"name": [
"Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada"
],
"type": "Organization"
},
"familyName": "Sanchez",
"givenName": "Adalberto Loyola",
"type": "Person"
},
{
"affiliation": {
"alternateName": "Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada",
"id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.22072.35",
"name": [
"Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, T2N 4N1, Calgary, AB, Canada",
"Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada"
],
"type": "Organization"
},
"familyName": "Hazlewood",
"givenName": "Glen S.",
"id": "sg:person.0731564305.93",
"sameAs": [
"https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.0731564305.93"
],
"type": "Person"
}
],
"citation": [
{
"id": "sg:pub.10.1007/s00464-014-4044-2",
"sameAs": [
"https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1020605777",
"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-4044-2"
],
"type": "CreativeWork"
},
{
"id": "sg:pub.10.1186/s13561-015-0079-x",
"sameAs": [
"https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1031266489",
"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-015-0079-x"
],
"type": "CreativeWork"
},
{
"id": "sg:pub.10.1186/1745-6215-8-38",
"sameAs": [
"https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1000328806",
"https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-8-38"
],
"type": "CreativeWork"
},
{
"id": "sg:pub.10.2165/11633720-000000000-00000",
"sameAs": [
"https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1069132382",
"https://doi.org/10.2165/11633720-000000000-00000"
],
"type": "CreativeWork"
},
{
"id": "sg:pub.10.1186/s13047-017-0240-3",
"sameAs": [
"https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1099678957",
"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-017-0240-3"
],
"type": "CreativeWork"
}
],
"datePublished": "2021-12-20",
"datePublishedReg": "2021-12-20",
"description": "Background and ObjectivePatients can express preferences for different treatment options in a healthcare context, and these can be measured with quantitative preference elicitation methods.ObjectiveOur objective was to conduct a scoping review to determine how preference elicitation methods have been used in the design of clinical trials.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review to identify primary research studies, involving any health condition, that used quantitative preference elicitation methods, including direct utility-based approaches, and stated preference studies, to value health trade-offs in the context of clinical trial design. Studies were identified by screening existing systematic and scoping reviews and with a primary literature search in MEDLINE from 2010 to the present. We extracted study characteristics and the application of preference elicitation methods to clinical trial design according to the SPIRIT checklist from primary studies and summarized the findings descriptively.ResultsWe identified 18 eligible studies. The included studies applied patient preferences to five areas of clinical trial design: intervention selection (n = 1), designing N-of-1 trials (n = 1), outcome selection and weighting composite and ordinal outcomes (n = 12), sample size calculations (n = 2), and recruitment (n = 2). Using preference elicitation methods led to different decisions being made, such as using preference-weighted composite outcomes instead of equally weighted composite outcomes.ConclusionPreference elicitation methods are infrequently used to design clinical trials but may lead to changes throughout the trial that could affect the evidence generated. Future work should consider measurement challenges and explore stakeholder perceptions.",
"genre": "article",
"id": "sg:pub.10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w",
"inLanguage": "en",
"isAccessibleForFree": false,
"isPartOf": [
{
"id": "sg:journal.1038760",
"issn": [
"1178-1653",
"1178-1661"
],
"name": "The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research",
"publisher": "Springer Nature",
"type": "Periodical"
}
],
"keywords": [
"clinical trial design",
"trial design",
"composite outcome",
"clinical trials",
"different treatment options",
"primary literature search",
"Scoping Review",
"primary research studies",
"SPIRIT checklist",
"treatment options",
"patient preferences",
"eligible studies",
"ObjectiveOur objective",
"outcome selection",
"study characteristics",
"literature search",
"health conditions",
"sample size calculation",
"trials",
"intervention selection",
"primary studies",
"outcomes",
"size calculation",
"review",
"healthcare context",
"ObjectivePatients",
"MEDLINE",
"study",
"MethodsWe",
"preference elicitation methods",
"ResultsWe",
"ordinal outcomes",
"preference studies",
"research studies",
"health",
"checklist",
"options",
"findings",
"recruitment",
"evidence",
"background",
"changes",
"objective",
"search",
"preferences",
"method",
"stakeholder perceptions",
"future work",
"perception",
"selection",
"measurement challenges",
"elicitation methods",
"present",
"area",
"challenges",
"characteristics",
"design",
"decisions",
"conditions",
"context",
"approach",
"different decisions",
"applications",
"work",
"utility-based approach",
"Trade-Offs",
"calculations"
],
"name": "The Application of Preference Elicitation Methods in Clinical Trial Design to Quantify Trade-Offs: A Scoping Review",
"pagination": "1-12",
"productId": [
{
"name": "dimensions_id",
"type": "PropertyValue",
"value": [
"pub.1144017738"
]
},
{
"name": "doi",
"type": "PropertyValue",
"value": [
"10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w"
]
},
{
"name": "pubmed_id",
"type": "PropertyValue",
"value": [
"34927216"
]
}
],
"sameAs": [
"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w",
"https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1144017738"
],
"sdDataset": "articles",
"sdDatePublished": "2022-05-20T07:38",
"sdLicense": "https://scigraph.springernature.com/explorer/license/",
"sdPublisher": {
"name": "Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project",
"type": "Organization"
},
"sdSource": "s3://com-springernature-scigraph/baseset/20220519/entities/gbq_results/article/article_896.jsonl",
"type": "ScholarlyArticle",
"url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w"
}
]
Download the RDF metadata as: json-ld nt turtle xml License info
JSON-LD is a popular format for linked data which is fully compatible with JSON.
curl -H 'Accept: application/ld+json' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w'
N-Triples is a line-based linked data format ideal for batch operations.
curl -H 'Accept: application/n-triples' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w'
Turtle is a human-readable linked data format.
curl -H 'Accept: text/turtle' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w'
RDF/XML is a standard XML format for linked data.
curl -H 'Accept: application/rdf+xml' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w'
This table displays all metadata directly associated to this object as RDF triples.
186 TRIPLES
22 PREDICATES
96 URIs
83 LITERALS
5 BLANK NODES
Subject | Predicate | Object | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | sg:pub.10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w | schema:about | anzsrc-for:11 |
2 | ″ | ″ | anzsrc-for:1117 |
3 | ″ | schema:author | Na016abbcea6f4fc8b751749c592502ba |
4 | ″ | schema:citation | sg:pub.10.1007/s00464-014-4044-2 |
5 | ″ | ″ | sg:pub.10.1186/1745-6215-8-38 |
6 | ″ | ″ | sg:pub.10.1186/s13047-017-0240-3 |
7 | ″ | ″ | sg:pub.10.1186/s13561-015-0079-x |
8 | ″ | ″ | sg:pub.10.2165/11633720-000000000-00000 |
9 | ″ | schema:datePublished | 2021-12-20 |
10 | ″ | schema:datePublishedReg | 2021-12-20 |
11 | ″ | schema:description | Background and ObjectivePatients can express preferences for different treatment options in a healthcare context, and these can be measured with quantitative preference elicitation methods.ObjectiveOur objective was to conduct a scoping review to determine how preference elicitation methods have been used in the design of clinical trials.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review to identify primary research studies, involving any health condition, that used quantitative preference elicitation methods, including direct utility-based approaches, and stated preference studies, to value health trade-offs in the context of clinical trial design. Studies were identified by screening existing systematic and scoping reviews and with a primary literature search in MEDLINE from 2010 to the present. We extracted study characteristics and the application of preference elicitation methods to clinical trial design according to the SPIRIT checklist from primary studies and summarized the findings descriptively.ResultsWe identified 18 eligible studies. The included studies applied patient preferences to five areas of clinical trial design: intervention selection (n = 1), designing N-of-1 trials (n = 1), outcome selection and weighting composite and ordinal outcomes (n = 12), sample size calculations (n = 2), and recruitment (n = 2). Using preference elicitation methods led to different decisions being made, such as using preference-weighted composite outcomes instead of equally weighted composite outcomes.ConclusionPreference elicitation methods are infrequently used to design clinical trials but may lead to changes throughout the trial that could affect the evidence generated. Future work should consider measurement challenges and explore stakeholder perceptions. |
12 | ″ | schema:genre | article |
13 | ″ | schema:inLanguage | en |
14 | ″ | schema:isAccessibleForFree | false |
15 | ″ | schema:isPartOf | sg:journal.1038760 |
16 | ″ | schema:keywords | MEDLINE |
17 | ″ | ″ | MethodsWe |
18 | ″ | ″ | ObjectiveOur objective |
19 | ″ | ″ | ObjectivePatients |
20 | ″ | ″ | ResultsWe |
21 | ″ | ″ | SPIRIT checklist |
22 | ″ | ″ | Scoping Review |
23 | ″ | ″ | Trade-Offs |
24 | ″ | ″ | applications |
25 | ″ | ″ | approach |
26 | ″ | ″ | area |
27 | ″ | ″ | background |
28 | ″ | ″ | calculations |
29 | ″ | ″ | challenges |
30 | ″ | ″ | changes |
31 | ″ | ″ | characteristics |
32 | ″ | ″ | checklist |
33 | ″ | ″ | clinical trial design |
34 | ″ | ″ | clinical trials |
35 | ″ | ″ | composite outcome |
36 | ″ | ″ | conditions |
37 | ″ | ″ | context |
38 | ″ | ″ | decisions |
39 | ″ | ″ | design |
40 | ″ | ″ | different decisions |
41 | ″ | ″ | different treatment options |
42 | ″ | ″ | elicitation methods |
43 | ″ | ″ | eligible studies |
44 | ″ | ″ | evidence |
45 | ″ | ″ | findings |
46 | ″ | ″ | future work |
47 | ″ | ″ | health |
48 | ″ | ″ | health conditions |
49 | ″ | ″ | healthcare context |
50 | ″ | ″ | intervention selection |
51 | ″ | ″ | literature search |
52 | ″ | ″ | measurement challenges |
53 | ″ | ″ | method |
54 | ″ | ″ | objective |
55 | ″ | ″ | options |
56 | ″ | ″ | ordinal outcomes |
57 | ″ | ″ | outcome selection |
58 | ″ | ″ | outcomes |
59 | ″ | ″ | patient preferences |
60 | ″ | ″ | perception |
61 | ″ | ″ | preference elicitation methods |
62 | ″ | ″ | preference studies |
63 | ″ | ″ | preferences |
64 | ″ | ″ | present |
65 | ″ | ″ | primary literature search |
66 | ″ | ″ | primary research studies |
67 | ″ | ″ | primary studies |
68 | ″ | ″ | recruitment |
69 | ″ | ″ | research studies |
70 | ″ | ″ | review |
71 | ″ | ″ | sample size calculation |
72 | ″ | ″ | search |
73 | ″ | ″ | selection |
74 | ″ | ″ | size calculation |
75 | ″ | ″ | stakeholder perceptions |
76 | ″ | ″ | study |
77 | ″ | ″ | study characteristics |
78 | ″ | ″ | treatment options |
79 | ″ | ″ | trial design |
80 | ″ | ″ | trials |
81 | ″ | ″ | utility-based approach |
82 | ″ | ″ | work |
83 | ″ | schema:name | The Application of Preference Elicitation Methods in Clinical Trial Design to Quantify Trade-Offs: A Scoping Review |
84 | ″ | schema:pagination | 1-12 |
85 | ″ | schema:productId | N8c3499fbb8504442839e1b3beaa12f86 |
86 | ″ | ″ | N913cc3d675b24d7a9f577d464a9f3691 |
87 | ″ | ″ | Nbdb2bf3032ba44aba51f1f6eead1b427 |
88 | ″ | schema:sameAs | https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1144017738 |
89 | ″ | ″ | https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w |
90 | ″ | schema:sdDatePublished | 2022-05-20T07:38 |
91 | ″ | schema:sdLicense | https://scigraph.springernature.com/explorer/license/ |
92 | ″ | schema:sdPublisher | N441d57490c3b4519a9f8add0c0d69d42 |
93 | ″ | schema:url | https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w |
94 | ″ | sgo:license | sg:explorer/license/ |
95 | ″ | sgo:sdDataset | articles |
96 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:ScholarlyArticle |
97 | N441d57490c3b4519a9f8add0c0d69d42 | schema:name | Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project |
98 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:Organization |
99 | N4e9be5175c0c4c2daa9e9f0690cfa980 | rdf:first | sg:person.012476351517.01 |
100 | ″ | rdf:rest | N85a3dcc4075849c6a8456eda1803fa62 |
101 | N8437dbcdf83f4843abf1a3f64b8df667 | rdf:first | N9d96133cbec04804a19e7fe9226eff1d |
102 | ″ | rdf:rest | Nc1567f7042fe404784dfc1f1d7a7b8a3 |
103 | N85a3dcc4075849c6a8456eda1803fa62 | rdf:first | sg:person.01013606445.46 |
104 | ″ | rdf:rest | N8437dbcdf83f4843abf1a3f64b8df667 |
105 | N8c3499fbb8504442839e1b3beaa12f86 | schema:name | doi |
106 | ″ | schema:value | 10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w |
107 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:PropertyValue |
108 | N913cc3d675b24d7a9f577d464a9f3691 | schema:name | pubmed_id |
109 | ″ | schema:value | 34927216 |
110 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:PropertyValue |
111 | N9d96133cbec04804a19e7fe9226eff1d | schema:affiliation | grid-institutes:grid.17089.37 |
112 | ″ | schema:familyName | Sanchez |
113 | ″ | schema:givenName | Adalberto Loyola |
114 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:Person |
115 | Na016abbcea6f4fc8b751749c592502ba | rdf:first | sg:person.010507042205.59 |
116 | ″ | rdf:rest | Ne82572c1d2bf47e588a6179ca53a27ae |
117 | Nbdb2bf3032ba44aba51f1f6eead1b427 | schema:name | dimensions_id |
118 | ″ | schema:value | pub.1144017738 |
119 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:PropertyValue |
120 | Nc1567f7042fe404784dfc1f1d7a7b8a3 | rdf:first | sg:person.0731564305.93 |
121 | ″ | rdf:rest | rdf:nil |
122 | Ne82572c1d2bf47e588a6179ca53a27ae | rdf:first | sg:person.01127752574.73 |
123 | ″ | rdf:rest | N4e9be5175c0c4c2daa9e9f0690cfa980 |
124 | anzsrc-for:11 | schema:inDefinedTermSet | anzsrc-for: |
125 | ″ | schema:name | Medical and Health Sciences |
126 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:DefinedTerm |
127 | anzsrc-for:1117 | schema:inDefinedTermSet | anzsrc-for: |
128 | ″ | schema:name | Public Health and Health Services |
129 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:DefinedTerm |
130 | sg:journal.1038760 | schema:issn | 1178-1653 |
131 | ″ | ″ | 1178-1661 |
132 | ″ | schema:name | The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research |
133 | ″ | schema:publisher | Springer Nature |
134 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:Periodical |
135 | sg:person.01013606445.46 | schema:affiliation | grid-institutes:grid.63984.30 |
136 | ″ | schema:familyName | Bartlett |
137 | ″ | schema:givenName | Susan J. |
138 | ″ | schema:sameAs | https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.01013606445.46 |
139 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:Person |
140 | sg:person.010507042205.59 | schema:affiliation | grid-institutes:grid.22072.35 |
141 | ″ | schema:familyName | Thomas |
142 | ″ | schema:givenName | Megan |
143 | ″ | schema:sameAs | https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.010507042205.59 |
144 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:Person |
145 | sg:person.01127752574.73 | schema:affiliation | grid-institutes:grid.22072.35 |
146 | ″ | schema:familyName | Marshall |
147 | ″ | schema:givenName | Deborah A. |
148 | ″ | schema:sameAs | https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.01127752574.73 |
149 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:Person |
150 | sg:person.012476351517.01 | schema:affiliation | grid-institutes:grid.22072.35 |
151 | ″ | schema:familyName | Choudhary |
152 | ″ | schema:givenName | Daksh |
153 | ″ | schema:sameAs | https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.012476351517.01 |
154 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:Person |
155 | sg:person.0731564305.93 | schema:affiliation | grid-institutes:grid.22072.35 |
156 | ″ | schema:familyName | Hazlewood |
157 | ″ | schema:givenName | Glen S. |
158 | ″ | schema:sameAs | https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.0731564305.93 |
159 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:Person |
160 | sg:pub.10.1007/s00464-014-4044-2 | schema:sameAs | https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1020605777 |
161 | ″ | ″ | https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-4044-2 |
162 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:CreativeWork |
163 | sg:pub.10.1186/1745-6215-8-38 | schema:sameAs | https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1000328806 |
164 | ″ | ″ | https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-8-38 |
165 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:CreativeWork |
166 | sg:pub.10.1186/s13047-017-0240-3 | schema:sameAs | https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1099678957 |
167 | ″ | ″ | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-017-0240-3 |
168 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:CreativeWork |
169 | sg:pub.10.1186/s13561-015-0079-x | schema:sameAs | https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1031266489 |
170 | ″ | ″ | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-015-0079-x |
171 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:CreativeWork |
172 | sg:pub.10.2165/11633720-000000000-00000 | schema:sameAs | https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1069132382 |
173 | ″ | ″ | https://doi.org/10.2165/11633720-000000000-00000 |
174 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:CreativeWork |
175 | grid-institutes:grid.17089.37 | schema:alternateName | Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada |
176 | ″ | schema:name | Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada |
177 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:Organization |
178 | grid-institutes:grid.22072.35 | schema:alternateName | Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, T2N 4N1, Calgary, AB, Canada |
179 | ″ | ″ | Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada |
180 | ″ | schema:name | Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, T2N 4N1, Calgary, AB, Canada |
181 | ″ | ″ | Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada |
182 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:Organization |
183 | grid-institutes:grid.63984.30 | schema:alternateName | Centre for Outcomes Research & Evaluation, Research Institute McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada |
184 | ″ | schema:name | Centre for Outcomes Research & Evaluation, Research Institute McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada |
185 | ″ | ″ | Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada |
186 | ″ | rdf:type | schema:Organization |