The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The impact of patients' preferences on the treatment of atrial fibrillation: observational study of patient based decision analysis Commentary: patients, preferences, and evidence
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of patients' preferences for the treatment of atrial fibrillation, by using individualised decision analysis combining probability and utility assessments into a decision tree. DESIGN: Observational study based on interviews with patients. SETTING: Eight general practices in Avon. PARTICIPANTS: 260 randomly selected patients aged 70-85 years with atrial fibrillation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' treatment preferences regarding anticoagulation treatment (warfarin) after individualised decision analysis; comparison of these preferences with treatment guidelines on the basis of comorbidity and absolute risk and compared with current prescription. RESULTS: Of 195 eligible patients, 97 participated in decision making using decision analysis. Among these 97, the decision analysis indicated that 59 (61%; 95% confidence interval 50% to 71%) would prefer anticoagulation treatment-considerably fewer than those who would be recommended treatment according to guidelines. There was marked disagreement between the decision analysis and guideline recommendations (kappa=0.25 or less). Of 38 patients whose decision analysis indicated a preference for anticoagulation, 17 (45%) were being prescribed warfarin; on the other hand, 28 (47%) of 59 patients were not being prescribed warfarin although the results of their decision analysis suggested they wanted to be. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of shared decision making, individualised decision analysis is valuable in a sizeable proportion of elderly patients with atrial fibrillation. Taking account of patients' preferences would lead to fewer prescriptions for warfarin than under published guideline recommendations. Decision analysis as a shared decision making tool should be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Fuster, V., Rydén, L. E., Cannom, D. S., Crijns, H. J., Curtis, A. B., Ellenbogen, K. A., Halperin, J. L., Le Heuzey, J.-Y., Kay, G. N., Lowe, J. E., et al. (2006) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.106.177292 · Cited by 2,805
Boyd, C. M., Darer, J., Boult, C., Fried, L. P., Boult, L., & Wu, A. W. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.294.6.716 · Cited by 2,581
Mant, J., Hobbs, F. R., Fletcher, K., Roalfe, A., Fitzmaurice, D., Lip, G. Y., & Murray, E. (2007) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61233-1 · Cited by 1,556
Epstein, R. M., Franks, P., Fiscella, K., Shields, C. G., Meldrum, S. C., Kravitz, R. L., & Duberstein, P. R. (2005) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.02.001 · Cited by 1,211
Fuster, V., Rydén, L. E., Cannom, D. S., Crijns, H. J., Curtis, A. B., Ellenbogen, K. A., Halperin, J. L., Kay, G. N., Le Huezey, J.-Y., Lowe, J. E., et al. (2011) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0b013e318214876d · Cited by 859
Metadata
- Authors
- Protheroe, J.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2000-05-20
- Volume
- 320
- Issue
- 7246
- Pages
- 1380-1384
- ISSN
- 0959-8138 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2122517461
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 0
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The impact of patients' preferences on the treatment of atrial fibrillation: observational study of patient based decision analysis Commentary: patients, preferences, and evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.320.7246.1380
- The paper
- Protheroe, J. (2000). The impact of patients' preferences on the treatment of atrial fibrillation: observational study of patient based decision analysis Commentary: patients, preferences, and evidence. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7246.1380
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.